The double-blind peer review process

External double-blind peer review means that authors do not know the identity of the reviewers, and reviewers do not know the identity of the authors. This procedure is intended to ensure an independent, objective, confidential, and specialized academic evaluation of works submitted to AMIDI.Biblioteca.

Submitted academic and research works shall preferably be evaluated by two external specialists in the relevant disciplines, approaches, or thematic areas. Reviewers shall assess the quality, originality, relevance, and validity of the theoretical contents, methodological consistency, analysis of results, bibliographic currency, academic structure, contribution to the field of knowledge, and potential scientific, technological, social, humanistic, or applied impact of the work.

The reviewer pool of AMIDI.Biblioteca consists of national and international specialists selected according to their academic competence, professional experience, thematic relevance, institutional independence, and absence of conflicts of interest. Preference may be given to reviewers with recognized academic trajectories, membership in the National System of Researchers (SNII) of the Secretariat of Science, Humanities, Technology and Innovation (SECIHTI) of Mexico, relevant academic production, or proven experience in the field of knowledge of the work under evaluation.

The average evaluation period for academic books, research books, methodological works, applied research works, academic proceedings, or co-editions shall be up to 120 days, counted from the acceptance of the work to begin the peer review process.

Generally, a work is considered accepted for publication or co-edition when it has received favorable reviews from the assigned reviewers and complies with the corresponding editorial, academic, technical, and documentary observations. In the event of a significant discrepancy between reviews, the Editorial Board may request the evaluation of a third external reviewer, whose assessment shall contribute to the final editorial decision.

Editorial decisions may include: acceptance, acceptance subject to revisions, request for major revisions, a new round of evaluation, non-acceptance, or editorial rejection. Final acceptance shall depend on the outcome of the academic evaluation process, compliance with the observations issued by the reviewers, and validation of the applicable legal, ethical, technical, and documentary requirements.

Situations not covered by this policy shall be resolved by the Editorial Curation of AMIDI.Biblioteca and/or by the Editorial Board, in accordance with the principles of academic integrity, impartiality, confidentiality, editorial transparency, and good practices in scholarly publishing.

External peer review may not be replaced by initial editorial review, style editing, technical review, metadata review, or participation by the Editorial Board, Scientific Committee, or Writing Committee. These bodies support the editorial process but do not replace independent academic peer review.