Cuerpos editoriales

Editorial Team. The editorial team of Diversitas consists of the editor-in-chief, associate editor, section editors, and the technical team responsible for editorial management on the OJS platform, copyediting, translation, JATS XML markup, metadata submission to CrossRef, and indexing.

Editorial Board. The editorial board of Diversitas is composed of researchers with recognized expertise in the various thematic areas and methodological traditions covered by the journal. Its composition seeks to ensure institutional diversity, with members affiliated with national and international universities; geographic diversity, with representation from Colombia, Latin America, and other regions; methodological diversity, with members from quantitative, qualitative, and mixed traditions; thematic diversity, aligned with the journal’s stated focus areas; and gender equity.

Its functions are: to support strategic editorial decisions; to contribute to the definition of priority thematic areas and special issues; to suggest peer reviewers and specialized evaluators; to assist the editor-in-chief in resolving complex editorial issues; to act as the final reviewing body in appeals processes regarding editorial decisions; and to represent the journal before the national and international academic community.

The editorial board is renewed every three years, with a partial turnover of its members, ensuring continuity while incorporating new voices. The current composition of the editorial board is published on the journal’s OJS, including each member’s full name, institutional affiliation, country, ORCID, and area of expertise.

Editorial Process

Receipt and Acknowledgment. Manuscripts are accepted exclusively through the journal’s OJS platform (OJS URL hyperlink). Receipt is formally acknowledged within a maximum of five business days. The acknowledgment confirms the manuscript’s entry into the editorial workflow; it does not imply acceptance for review.

Preliminary review. The editorial team conducts a preliminary review within a maximum of fifteen business days and verifies:

· Relevance to the journal’s scope and the types of manuscripts accepted.

· Compliance with the formal submission guidelines established in the author guidelines.

· Completion of the pre-submission checklist and mandatory declarations (originality, authorship and CRediT contributions, conflicts of interest, funding, ethical compliance, use of generative artificial intelligence, data availability).

· Results of the similarity and plagiarism analysis.

· Proper anonymization of the manuscript for double-blind review.

· Adherence to the reporting standard declared by the authors according to the study design.

Following the preliminary review, the manuscript may be: (a) sent for peer review; (b) returned to the authors with a request for formal revisions prior to review; (c) desk rejected when it does not meet the minimum criteria for relevance, quality, or ethical compliance. Decisions to desk reject are communicated with clear justification.

Peer Review. Manuscripts that pass the preliminary review are assigned to a minimum of two external peer reviewers under a double-blind review process. Each peer reviewer has thirty business days to submit their report. The entire peer review process, including possible reviewer substitutions or additional reports, may take up to sixty business days.

Editorial decision. The editorial decision regarding a manuscript may be:

· Acceptance: the manuscript is accepted for publication as reviewed or after minor revisions.

· Conditional acceptance: the manuscript is accepted subject to substantive revisions verified by the editorial team.

· Request for major revision with re-review: the manuscript requires significant modifications and will be re-reviewed by the same reviewers or by new reviewers.

· Rejection: the manuscript is not accepted for publication.

Decisions are communicated to the authors with justification based on the peer reviews, within a maximum of fifteen business days following receipt of the final reviews. The communication includes the anonymized reviews.

Editorial Timelines. Diversitas commits to the following approximate timelines, counted from the receipt of the manuscript:

· Acknowledgment of receipt: five business days.

· Decision on peer review or desk rejection: up to fifteen additional business days.

· Peer review and issuance of reviews: up to sixty business days.

· Editorial decision communicated to the authors: up to six months from receipt.

· Publication following final acceptance: in accordance with the current editorial calendar.

These timelines may vary depending on the availability of qualified peer reviewers, the complexity of the manuscript, the authors’ revision processes, and editorial production workflows. Significant delays will be communicated in a timely manner.

Publication process. Following final acceptance, manuscripts undergo: proofreading of the original version and simultaneous Spanish (Portuguese)-English translation; typesetting and layout; JATS XML tagging; DOI assignment via CrossRef; deposit of complete metadata in CrossRef, including cited references with DOIs, authors’ ORCIDs, affiliations’ RORs, CRediT taxonomy, funding statements, and open data identifiers where applicable; final verification by the authors; publication on OJS and deposit in databases where the journal is indexed; assignment of the corresponding open science badges following verification of compliance.

Peer Review Policy

Method. Diversitas operates under a double-blind peer review system: reviewers do not know the authors’ identities, and authors do not know the identities of those reviewing their manuscripts.

Selection of Reviewers. Selection is guided by the following criteria: specific expertise in the methodological design and subject matter of the manuscript; recognized academic and research track record; recent output verifiable in academic databases; institutional, geographic, and methodological diversity; absence of conflicts of interest with the authors. Diversitas maintains a database of reviewers with diverse and international coverage, which is continuously updated.

Responsibilities of peer reviewers. In accordance with the COPE guidelines for reviewers, peer reviewers assume the following responsibilities:

· Accept the review only when they have specific expertise in the design and subject matter, have no conflicts of interest, and can meet the deadlines.

· Maintain absolute confidentiality regarding the manuscript and the review process. Do not share the manuscript with third parties, nor use its content for personal gain or that of associated individuals.

· Review with objectivity, rigor, and respect, basing evaluations on verifiable technical arguments and the reporting standards applicable to the study design.

· Formulate reviews in professional and constructive language.

· Disclose to the editorial team the use of generative artificial intelligence in preparing the review, without submitting the manuscript to tools that do not guarantee confidentiality.

· Notify the editorial team of any well-founded suspicion of plagiarism, fabrication or falsification of data, duplicate publication, or any other form of scientific misconduct detected in the manuscript.

· Meet agreed-upon deadlines or promptly notify the editorial team of any impediments.

· Disclose any conflicts of interest that arise and decline the review accordingly.

Possible recommendations. Peer reviewers may issue the following recommendations: accept without changes; accept with minor changes; request major revisions with re-evaluation; reject. If the reviews are contradictory and compromise the editorial decision, the editorial team requests a third review. The final decision is the responsibility of the editor-in-chief.

Commitment to peer reviewers. Diversitas recognizes the work of peer reviewers as an essential contribution to editorial quality. It commits to respecting the confidentiality of their identity; providing clear guidelines differentiated by type of manuscript; communicating realistic deadlines; issuing formal certification of the review when requested; and publicly acknowledging, on an annual basis and when reviewers authorize it, their contribution to the journal.

Complaints, Appeals, and Claims

Authors may formally submit complaints, appeals, or claims regarding editorial decisions or the editorial process. Appeals should be addressed to the editor-in-chief with specific arguments. The editor-in-chief will respond within a maximum of thirty business days. If the appeal is not resolved to the author’s satisfaction, the author may escalate the claim to the editorial board, which acts as the final review body.

Archiving and Digital Preservation

Diversitas guarantees the archiving and digital preservation in perpetuity of published articles through: the OJS platform of the University of Santo Tomás; the deposit of metadata in CrossRef; the deposit in the databases where the journal is indexed; and the institutional repositories of the University of Santo Tomás.

Validity and Updates

These policies are reviewed biennially and updated in accordance with developments in international guidelines, advances in reporting standards by design, and the editorial experience of Diversitas. Updated versions are published on the OJS with an indication of the effective date.