PS&E has a double-blind peer review policy, which means that both authors and reviewers are anonymous in the review process. The reviewers assigned to each manuscript are academics and specialists in the topic and/or methodology, selected among the members of the International Scientific Committee and external reviewers of the journal.

Review process
All manuscripts received are reviewed by the Editorial Team, who will first check whether the article submitted conforms to the formal criteria required by the journal. The Editorial Team will then evaluate the work's compliance with the journal's standards, relevance, rigour, and the originality of its research. Its decision will be conveyed within approximately 10 days.
If it passes this first stage, each manuscript is sent to at least two independent reviewers who assess its scientific quality. If there is controversy between the peer reviewers' opinions, that is, they do not coincide in their final decision, the editor will request the review of at least other peer reviewer to make a more adjusted decision.
The Editorial Team will be responsible for the final decision on the acceptance or rejection of the article for publication, based on the evaluation and recommendations of the reviewers. The Editorial Team will send to the corresponding author the result of its decision: 1) admission for publication without changes; 2) admission for publication with minor/major corrections; 3) the article needs important corrections for admission; and 4) rejected. Together with their decision, they will send the observations and comments derived from the review carried out by the reviewers and the Editorial Team. The editorial team undertakes to communicate a first decision within a maximum period of four months.

Indications for reviewers
The review performedby the reviewers should cover formal aspects (clarity, structure and organization, expository style, thematic precision, grammatical correctness) and aspects of content (originality of the work, coherence with the line of the journal, relevance of the topic, topicality of the issues, review of the themes, rationale, internal coherence, bibliographical references). The reviewers will have an evaluation sheet composed of two parts: first, a brief check-list on basic aspects of the manuscript; and second, two boxes for comments both for the Editorial Team and for the authors. In addition, they will be able to make comments, recommendations and proposals for changes in the own manuscript and upload the document (in word format, blinded to ensure compliance with the review process followed by the journal).

All reviewers must adhere to the following ethical guidelines:
1. They will only accept to review manuscripts in which they have sufficient expertise, committing themselves to perform them within the established deadlines.
2. They will maintain the confidentiality of the peer review process.
3. They should be objective and constructive in their review, refraining from making defamatory or derogatory personal comments.
4. They should make sure that they are familiar with the journal's specific publication guidelines (if you are not familiar with them, we invite you to consult them).
5. They will provide a review report that is constructive, thorough, substantiated, and with appropriate content.
6. They should report if, despite anonymity measures, they have identified authorship and have any relationship that may cause bias in their evaluation.
7. If they suspect plagiarism, fraud or have other ethical concerns, they should notify the editorial team of their suspicions, providing as much detail as possible.

Template for reviewers