Publication guidelines

Peer Review Process
All submitted manuscripts undergo specialized anonymous peer review under a double-blind system, consisting of the following stages:

Initial Screening
The editor conducts a preliminary review to assess the manuscript's relevance, quality standards, and alignment with editorial policies. Manuscripts that meet these criteria proceed to external review.

External Review
Approved manuscripts are assigned to at least two expert reviewers in the relevant field. Reviewers independently evaluate the manuscript based on predefined criteria and submit their assessments to the editor.

Possible Verdicts:
• Rejected
• Accepted with major revisions
• Accepted with minor revisions
• Accepted without revisions
In case of conflicting evaluations, a third reviewer is appointed.

Evaluation Communication
Reviewers' comments are sent to authors, who must:
• Implement revisions, clearly marking changes in the manuscript.
• Submit a response letter addressing each comment point-by-point, with justifications for any unaddressed concerns.
• Deadlines: 10 days for minor revisions, 15 days for major revisions.
• If the manuscript is rejected, the authors will be informed, including the rejection concepts.

Revision Review
Revised manuscripts are sent back to the original reviewers (if available) for final evaluation. If reviewers do not respond, the editor makes the final decision.

Appeals
Authors may appeal within 3 business days by submitting a rebuttal letter with counterarguments and supporting literature. The editor-in-chief's decision is final.

Review Timeline
The process typically takes 1-2 months, depending on reviewer availability. Delays are communicated to authors.

Reviewer Guidelines
Before accepting a review invitation, reviewers must:
• Confirm the manuscript falls within their expertise.
• Disclose any conflicts of interest and recuse themselves if necessary.
• Maintain confidentiality before, during, and after the review process.

Evaluation Criteria
• Originality
• Contribution to the field
• Technical quality
• Clarity of presentation
• Depth of research

Recommendation Options
• Accept
• Minor revisions required
• Major revisions required
• Reject

Privacy Statement
Names and email addresses provided to the journal will be used exclusively for stated purposes and will not be shared with third parties or used for other purposes.

Section Policies
• Articles: Research and creation in arts and humanities, focusing on scientific/technological innovation, reflection, and review. Topics include urban studies, creative industries, emerging aesthetics, and research-creation processes.
• Art Dossier: Visual artists' work, primarily graphic (photographs, illustrations, etc.), with a brief introductory text.
• Faro de Nodo: Short notes (700–1,250 words) on art, exhibitions, film, music, and cultural events.
• Reviews: Critiques of books (700–1,250 words) related to arts and humanities.

Evaluation Process
• First Phase: Editorial review for originality, relevance, and thematic alignment.
• Second Phase: Double-blind peer review by two external experts, assessing:
–Topic relevance.
–Methodological coherence.
–Clarity of ideas.
–Scientific quality.
–Conceptual originality.
–Decisions (acceptance/revision/rejection) are communicated within one month.
• Third Phase: Authors have two weeks to address reviewers' comments before editorial processing.

Copyright Transfer
Authors of accepted articles must sign a Publication Intent Letter, granting Revista Nodo  rights to publish in print and digital formats. Published content remains the authors’ sole responsibility and do not reflect the views of the publishing institution, the journal, or the editorial board. Each author is responsible for the graphic material (photographs, images, graphs) submitted to the journal for publication.

Artificial Intelligence Policy
• AI tools (e.g., ChatGPT) cannot be listed as authors (per COPE, WAME, and JAMA guidelines).
• Authors must disclose AI usage and assume full responsibility for AI-generated content.

Post-Publication Discussions & Corrections
• Corrections: Must be requested by all authors and approved by the editor based on scientific merit.
• Retractions: Articles may be withdrawn due to scientific flaws or misconduct. A retraction notice will be published, but the original article remains accessible.