DIXI will follow a "double blind" arbitration system to evaluate and decide on the publication of its main articles. Below is a more detailed account of the stages in which the arbitration takes place:

Peer review system. All the articles presented to the journal for their editions will be submitted to a "double blind" arbitration process that will be carried out with the help of expert peers in each subject. The participation of the peers will be ad honórem and it is expected to be assumed as a pact of academic reciprocity, in which it is intended to constructively contribute to strengthen (and validate) the research and contributions of other colleagues within the discipline. In the case of the reviews, which are dissemination documents, they may be reviewed by the editor himself or by other members of the journal's editorial team. Its publication will be decided according to its thematic and textual coherence, its relevance to the area or according to the interest or validity of the discussion it proposes.

Profile of evaluators. The pairs of DIXI will have at least postgraduate training and written production published in the area in which they are called to evaluate.

Evaluators. It is expected that the reviewers of the journal make a thorough and constructive reading of each article they agree to review, seeking not only to issue a recommendation of approval or rejection to the editor, but their comments allow the authors to improve their texts or reflect on the scope, possibilities or flaws of your manuscript. Likewise, the evaluators must consider that the texts that the editor has entrusted to them are unpublished, and any undue or unauthorized use of the information contained therein would imply a serious ethical breach. Also, the responsibility to evaluate a work, once it has been accepted, can not be transferred to third parties, especially if it has not been justified and previously consulted with the editor. Finally, any conflict of interest that the evaluator identifies after having received a job and that potentially undermines their independence in the elaboration of a concept must be informed.

Reception and editorial evaluation. Once the editor receives the postulation of the article, a notification will be sent to the author confirming the delivery. Then, the editor will make a preliminary review of the article in order to establish if the parameters of presentation of the journal have been fully complied with and if the article corresponds to the thematic and editorial line. The editor will have full power to decide if the article can be accepted for a full arbitration process or if it should be rejected in the first instance. Also, in this phase, you may return the manuscript to the authors requesting some corrections or clarifications before the article is officially registered for arbitration. In this case, the authors must return the article with adjustments (or the documentation that has been omitted, for example, the author's file or the letter of commitment) if they wish to continue with the process.

Selection of pairs. If the article is accepted for arbitration, the editor will initiate the process of assigning reviewers, locating and summoning two expert researchers on the topic of the article, who will receive the full text of the article and a format that will guide their evaluation.

Evaluation times. The usual time of a complete arbitration cycle (peer location, invitation and acceptance, concept reception, delivery to authors) should not exceed one quarter. However, in some issues it is not easy to locate willing pairs with the appropriate profile to evaluate, so the deadlines will be agreed directly with each evaluator, considering their time availability (and ensuring that the process is developed in the most efficient way possible).

Results. The editor will send a result to the authors based on the concept of at least two pairs. In the case of a conflict in the opinion of the peers (an approval and a rejection) a third reviewer will be convened before the editor communicates a decision to the authors. The result of the evaluation can be "approved without modifications", "approved with minor modifications", "approved with substantial modifications" or "rejected". The concept of "approved with substantial modifications" is assimilated to "revise and resubmit", which implies a willingness on the part of the authors to carry out a profound rethinking of the proposal. Otherwise, the journal will terminate the arbitration process, leaving the authors free to submit the work to another publication.

Corrections. Along with the submission of a result, if the editor estimates that it is feasible to receive an adjusted version of an article, a deadline for delivery of the new version will be agreed with the authors, which can range from two (2) to ten (10) weeks. , in case of a substantial adjustment. If the authors fail to meet the agreed deadlines, the editor may terminate the process of the article, discarding its publication in the journal. On the other hand, to facilitate a verification of the adjusted version, authors must modify their article using the Word change control tool, as well as send a letter addressed to each evaluator, explaining the adjustments made. Without the delivery of that reply to the evaluators, the editor will not send the adjusted article to the verification phase.

Verification and final version. The verification in most cases will be done with the help of the peers, but also the editor can directly review the adjustments made in the article, if the corrections have been minor. Thus, in the case that minor adjustments are requested for an article, authors are asked to refrain from incorporating substantive changes or implying a conceptual or methodological adjustment that has not been verified by the evaluators. On the other hand, if the adjustments have been satisfactory, the editor will inform the authors of the approval and request the presentation of the final version of the article in a template in which it will be sent to editorial production. If in the process of enlisting the final version an important error is detected that implies correcting or modifying the article in some substantial sense, the editor must be informed.