At the journal, we promote transparency and rigor in the peer review process, aligning ourselves with international best practices in open review. We believe that openness in the evaluation of manuscripts strengthens the quality of the editorial process, fosters accountability, and enriches academic debate. The journal's evaluation method remains double-blind peer review, but we align ourselves with the following open review stances:

1. Open Review Principles

• Transparency: We promote that evaluation reports and editorial decisions are accessible to authors and, in certain cases, to the academic community.
• Interaction: We encourage, only when requested by both parties, constructive dialogue between authors and reviewers to improve the quality of manuscripts.
• Recognition: We offer the possibility for reviewers to be identified and receive credit for their work if they so wish.

2. Open Review Modalities

Depending on the nature of the manuscript, the phase of the process and the consent of those involved, in the journal we can apply one or more of the following open evaluation approaches:

• Open identity review: The names of the reviewers and/or authors can be visible to each other.
• Publication of review reports: The reviewers' comments can be published together with the article, ensuring transparency in the process.
• Community participation: Mechanisms can be enabled to receive comments from the scientific community at certain stages of the evaluation.

3. Commitment to Quality and Ethics

The adoption of open evaluation methods does not compromise the impartiality or rigor of the editorial process. We ensure that:

• A high standard of critical and objective review is maintained.
• The confidentiality of reviewers who prefer anonymity is protected.
• It is ensured that openness does not lead to bias in the evaluation of manuscripts.

4. Implementation and Monitoring

To ensure compliance with this policy:

• We will inform authors and reviewers about the open evaluation options available.
• We will regularly evaluate the effectiveness of the open evaluation system and its impact on the quality of manuscripts.
• Recognition of the work of reviewers will be encouraged through systems such as ORCID, Publons or other academic accreditation platforms.

With this policy, the journal reaffirms its commitment to openness, transparency and continuous improvement in the evaluation of scientific production.