Publication policies

Peer review process

Manuscripts must be submitted to the editorial office of Cuadernos de Historia at the email address c_histor@uchile.cl, in accordance with the ethical and editorial standards established by the journal. Only manuscripts that comply with the formal requirements will be submitted to peer review, once the editorial team has verified that the manuscript meets the journal’s high standards of quality and ethics. For this purpose, the Editorial Team uses a Turnitin account, a software tool that detects similarities in texts. Similarities and other forms of behavior contrary to ethical standards shall be sanctioned (see ethical standards).

The Editorial Team is composed of the journal’s director, Professor PhD in History, Sergio Grez, and the editorial assistant, PhD candidate in History, Isabel Farías.

Each author may have only one article under review at a time, from the date of submission until a final decision is reached.

Authors must ensure that manuscripts submitted to Cuadernos de Historia are not simultaneously under submission or review in other journals.

All manuscripts are evaluated through a double-blind peer review process by at least two reviewers appointed by the journal’s editorial office. Reviewers must belong to institutions different from that of the author and must have no conflict of interest.

Reviewers will complete an evaluation form and submit their report within a maximum period of two months. In the event of disagreement between reviewers, the manuscript will be sent to a third reviewer. The Editorial Team will inform only the author of the evaluation results, which may be: accepted, partially accepted (requiring revisions), or rejected.

If reviewers suggest changes based on reasonable arguments and constructive criticism—including relevant sources that were not considered—the author(s) must revise the manuscript accordingly, submit the revised version, and complete a Revision Report. In this report, authors must fill in a table listing the reviewers’ suggestions, indicating which ones were incorporated and which were not, and explaining the reasons.

Only after the authors have completed the required revisions, and after a positive re-evaluation by the reviewers and the Editorial Team, will the Editorial Team notify the author of the article’s acceptance and its expected publication date. The Editorial Team reserves the right to include articles in the issue it considers most appropriate and to make formal modifications to the original text when necessary. The dates of submission and acceptance will be indicated in the published article.

Authors are solely responsible for the content and opinions expressed in their manuscripts, which do not necessarily represent those of the editors.

Summary of the Evaluation Process

1. Submission of the article.
2. Acknowledgment of receipt by the Editorial Team.
3. First stage of evaluation: internal review by the Editorial Team (verification of the relevance of the topic, formal aspects, and academic structure of the article—introduction, development, and conclusion—and screening through Turnitin software).
4. If the article passes the first stage (internal evaluation), it proceeds to the second stage: peer review.
5. Identification of suitable reviewers (in terms of subject expertise and academic development) with no conflict of interest with the author.
6. Submission of the article for peer review (minimum of two reviewers).
7. Reviewers conduct their evaluations (maximum time: 2 months).
8. Follow-up on the evaluation process.
9. Receipt and review of the evaluation reports.
10. The evaluation reports are sent to the author.
11. If the article is rejected, the Editorial Team informs the author of the final decision, ending the editorial process for that manuscript.
12. If the article is fully or partially accepted, the author must submit a revised version addressing the reviewers’ comments.
13. Receipt of the revised article and the Revision Report.
14. The Editorial Team reviews the revised article and the Revision Report.
15. Third stage of evaluation: re-evaluation. The revised article is sent back to the reviewers (especially to the reviewer who suggested the most changes).
16. The publication decision is made based on the reviewers’ final comments and the Editorial Team’s final assessment of the revised article (considering whether its quality has improved and whether the reviewers’ comments were adequately addressed).
17. The author is notified of the acceptance and publication date.
18. End of the evaluation process.