All texts received by Papeles del CEIC are evaluated either internally or externally. In the section, "Research Articles", that gathers original research articles, papers go through a rigourous double-blind review process. Pursuant to this strict review process, Papeles del CEIC asks its reviewers to perform pondered, careful, respectful, and well-grounded evaluations, going beyond formal aspects to turn this important activity into a significant academic act that will enhance the debate without censuring or limiting it.

Peer Review Process

1. Papeles del CEIC applies a double-blind peer review method.

2. Once a paper is received by Papeles del CEIC, the editor-in-chief and the editorial staff will consider whether it meets the formal and thematic criteria of Papeles del CEIC.

3. If it meets such criteria, the paper will be put through a first evaluation in which its general quality is assessed and its thematic suitability is determined. This initial evaluation will be conducted by the journal's editorial board and will take approximately three weeks as of reception of the paper. If it is determined that the paper does not meet the required criteria, a well-grounded response will be sent to the author.

4. Papers that pass this first evaluation will be sent to two reviewers specialized in the subject or line of research addressed by the paper. Both reviewers will evaluate the manuscript within a term of eight weeks as of the date in which they agree to review it, they will apply criteria for excellence and rigorous academic form and will consider if the manuscript's theme falls under the editorial line of Papeles del CEIC, carefully following and bearing in mind the "Instructions to Reviewers."

5. Once the reviews are submitted, the paper will be assigned to a member of the editorial board who will give a brief report recommending one of the following decisions, which will be communicated to the author: (1) Not acceptable for publication; (2) Acceptable for publication with no changes or with only slight changes; and (3) Acceptable for publication following revision.

6. In the last two cases, the author will have to make the changes suggested and, if not, he or she will have to adequately justify the decision not to do so. Upon sending the revised version, the author will have to attach a note explaining the changes made and discussing, if necessary, the suggestions or criticism by the reviewers and the editing staff in representation of the editorial board. The author will be given approximately four weeks to make the changes requested.

Every year, Papeles del CEIC publishes a list of all the reviewers who have made anonymous reviews.