You are here

Section policies

Peer Review Process

All works submitted to RHSM, except for literature reviews, are evaluated through a double-blind peer review (by a Peer Review Committee) based on the evaluation guidelines approved by the Scientific Council.

The Peer Review Committee is comprised of both local and international renowned specialists with extensive research experience.

Once reports from the blind reviewers are received, the Editorial Council will decide whether a work is approved or rejected for publication through the following statements: 

  1. Approved for publication
  2. Approved for publication with modifications to certain aspects indicated by reviewers
  3. The article is rejected for publication

If reviewers request some corrections, the author will have twenty working days to make the necessary changes. If this deadline is not met, the publication of the paper will be subject to the decision of the editorial Committee depending on the editing times of the Journal. In addition, it must be noted that the approval of a work does not imply its immediate publication.

The General Editor of the journal will acknowledge receipt of the originals within fifteen working days from their reception.  

This review system implies that each article is evaluated by two members external to the editorial. The reviewers will have twenty working days to evaluate the paper. In case of split decision, a third reviewer will be consulted.

Authors are required to attach a declaration of originality to the manuscript.

Publication Frequency


Open Access Policy

This journal provides free and open access to its content under the principle of making research available to the public at no cost, as this promotes a greater exchange of knowledge in the world.

Ethical Principles

Statement of Ethics

In order to disclose the criteria and procedures that govern the relationship between this journal and its authors, as well as to establish the rights and responsibilities of each participant in this instance of public communications, Revista Historia Social y de las Mentalidades (RHSM) abides by and promotes the dissemination activities that are detailed below. These activities are based on the guidelines provided by the Committee on Publication Ethics, COPE, specifically in its Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors.

General Duties and Responsibilities of RHSM Editors:

  • To satisfy the needs of the journal’s readers and authors
  • To constantly improve the journal
  • To ensure the quality of the material published
  • To defend freedom of speech
  • To protect the integrity and confidentiality of academic data
  • To prevent commercial needs from compromising the free consultation and use of content, and intellectual and publishing standards
  • To always be willing to publish corrections, clarifications, retractions and apologies when necessary

Specific Duties and Responsibilities toward Readers

Whether by referring directly or by request of private individuals, editors will always disclose all the information about the origin of publications, funding sources, the role of possible funders or sponsors, as well as the origin and/or financial sponsorship of the published articles.

Additionally, the information about editorial policy, edition criteria and indexing works will also be made public.

Relationship with Authors

Editors will follow all the necessary steps to ensure the quality of the material published, specifying, if necessary, the purposes and standards of the different sections in which the content is organized.

The decisions of editors regarding the approval or rejection of a manuscript for publication will be exclusively based on the importance, originality and clarity of said manuscript, as well as on the relevance of the study according to the contents declared by the journal.

The requirements for the preparation of papers and original works will be communicated to the authors through their publication in the journal.

The mode of evaluation for original manuscripts, revision guidelines, response time, mechanisms for appeals, copyright handling and resolution of conflicts of interest will be informed on the home page of the journal’s website.

Any change of personnel or criteria in the editorial direction of the journal will not affect authors (or their works) accepted for publication prior to such changes.

Relationship with Revisers

The Editorial Board of RHSM will publish the evaluation guidelines for originals so authors know how their works will be evaluated.

RHSM will take measures to ensure and protect the identity of the peer reviewers. Any changes on this matter will be promptly informed to the authors.

The Editorial Team will have an informed mechanism for the reception and handling of complaints, as well as forms of response and appeal at different levels until a final and indisputable verdict is reached through decision of an impartial arbitrator selected by the parties involved in each case.

Promotion of Debate

The Editorial Team will publish all criticism and substantiated challenges received as a response to the publication of an article or opinion. The presence of coarse or offensive language will stop their reproduction. The authors of the materials criticized will have, in turn, the right to respond as long as they follow the rules of respect and communicational cordiality.

Promotion of Ethical-Academic Integrity

The Editorial Team will ensure that contents to be published adjust to internationally accepted ethical criteria. If necessary, they will request authors to pass the corresponding ethical evaluations (by an Ethics Committee, Review Committee, etc.). Obtaining their approval, however does not imply that all materials proposed by the authors have an ethical guarantee. The Editorial Board of the journal therefore reserves the right to make the final decision.

Editors will promote compliance with ethical standards in both published and unpublished works. To this end, concerns will be addressed first with authors or people directly involved. If necessary, due to the magnitude or implications of some ethical misconducts, editors will take the case to other institutions or people.

If editors notice that significant imprecisions, wrong or deceitful references or distorted information have been published in the journal, RHSM will contact the authors for their immediate correction in the online version. This should be clearly explained in the publication. In case that for any reason, said correction is not obtained, the editors reserve the right to remove the contents in dispute.

Conflict of Interest

RHSM has mechanisms and formulas to deal with different conflicts of interest that may arise between their administration, between these and the authors; between authors and reviewers and between contents and readers.

The mechanisms to address problems and inconveniences within the Editorial Board are team meetings, bilateral consultations between their members and final decision by the Management of the journal.

Regarding the journal and its editorial environment (authors, reviewers, readers), complaints, claims, appeals, replies and answers will be relayed to the Editor, who will determine the steps to follow and people or institution to which resort.

In case complaints are directed against the Editor, the communication of such should be first sent to the Editor. If the complaint is overlooked or not solved satisfactorily, the claimant can appeal to the Management of the journal, which if necessary and with the agreement of the claimant, can designate a final arbitrator who must decide on the issue.

Plagiarism and Self-plagiarism

Undoubtedly, the misuse of resources produced by third parties or oneself constitutes one of the most serious offenses in research and scientific publishing ethics and probity. There is vast literature in which this issue is analyzed in its multiple dimensions (Ética Editorial: cómo detectar el plagio por medios automatizados can be consulted as a reference).

This journal deals with the phenomenon through the following mechanisms:

Detection by electronic means. Titles, names of authors and contents are revised and checked in web browsers (Google; DDG).

Specialized open source tools are also used, such as plagiarism detect and turnitin. The advice and guidelines provided by HTW, main initiative on the matter (see HTW website) is also considered. These tools cross check paragraphs identified as suspicious. This work is entrusted to our executive editorial team.

Detection of style by means of cross checking paragraphs identified as suspicious. This work is entrusted to our executive editorial team.

Additionally, presumptions or judgements of (self) plagiarism or other manners of misconduct in previous publications undergo the following procedure:

  • The journal’s Executive Editorial Committee will evaluate the act under suspect or breach.
  • Authors are informed about the suspicion or charge of plagiarism (data and proof are provided).
  • The deadline for clarifications and appealing is notified. The deadline cannot be changed, unless reasons of force majeure are provided, and will not be longer than 30 calendar days from the moment of notification to the authors.
  • Clarifications and evidence from the authors accused are assessed if necessary.
  • The Executive Committee issues a resolution and final decision about the paper called into question within 60 days. The verdict will not be open to appeal.

All the procedures will be written and duly backed up in the management files of the journal. If necessary, the Executive Committee will consult experts from other institutions to better solve the problem.

The only penalty for authors who have committed plagiarism or self-plagiarism (and that have not provided clear and conclusive evidence for their case) will be the prohibition to submit new manuscripts to the journal for 3 years. The journal reserves the right to publish the results of the process and/or refer the case to other relevant administrative and legal organisms, depending on the nature and effects of the same. 

Note: this journal will follow the guidelines set by COPE and Plagiat-HT to define and qualify misconducts.