Scientific articles, literature review articles, case reports, short communications, and other articles that are related to the journal's disclosure objectives will be accepted for evaluation by the editorial/consultative committee, being one of the authors with the title of master or doctor. The material is sent to the consultants and reviewers, who will decide on the convenience of the publication, in full or in part, forwarding suggestions and possible corrections to the author. The JRG Journal of Academic Studies adopts as evaluation policy the "double blind peer review" system, promoted by members of its body of evaluators, registered in the site of the journal. Texts submitted undergo an initial formal evaluation by the editorial team, which may request corrections and additions. Texts that do not fit the scope of the journal, that do not meet mandatory requirements will be filed.

3.1 The publication of the articles is submitted to the double blind peer reviewprocedure.

3.2 The works are sent without identification of authorship to two "ad hoc" referees with a doctoral degree, linked to JRG Journal of Academic Studies

3.3 In case of controversy between the evaluators, the article is submitted to a third evaluator.

3.4 The referees are always Doctors affiliated to renowned national and foreign higher education institutions.

3.5 The criteria used in the evaluation form are the following:

• Is the expert in a position to evaluate the article because there is no conflict of interest?
• Does the title clearly and sufficiently reflect the content of the article?
• Does the article comply with the journal's methodological standards?
• Does the article present a scientific analysis about the subject?
• Is there coherence and logic in the development of the theme?
• Do the conclusions correspond to the premises of the research?
• Are the bibliographical references sufficient, adequate and updated?
• Are the concepts used throughout the text generally correct?
• Is the content in accordance with the criteria of not conveying prejudices and/or defamation and slanders that harm the integrity of the readers and/or individuals cited?
• Use this space to make general or specific comments that you consider pertinent.
• The possible results of the evaluation process are the following:
• Article without restrictions of scientific content; may be accepted for publication.
• Article with minor restrictions; may be accepted upon review by the author; no new technical opinion
• Article with major content restrictions; should not be accepted for
• The evaluation process usually takes 2 to 5