Editorial Independence and Conflict of Interest Statement

Editorial Independence. Simbolismo: Signs, Identities, Meanings maintains editorial independence from its publisher. Decisions to accept or reject manuscripts are based solely on the quality, originality, and scholarly merit of the work and its relevance to the journal’s aims and scope. The publisher exercises no influence over the evaluation or acceptance of individual submissions.

Peer Review. All research articles undergo double-blind peer review by at least two independent reviewers who have no conflicting interest with the authors. Reviewer recommendations inform decisions, but the Editor-in-Chief and other Editors involved in the review process confirm all editorial decisions.

Editorial Board. The journal is guided by an Editorial Board of 11 members as of June 2026, with relevant scholarly expertise drawn from multiple institutions. Editorial Board members are listed publicly on the journal’s website together with their institutional affiliations and/or research profiles.

Handling of Submissions by Editors, Editorial Board members, or the Publisher. When a manuscript is submitted by an Editorial Board member or anyone affiliated with the publisher, that individual is fully recused from the handling of their own submission. The manuscript is assigned to an independent co-editor or guest editor who manages reviewer selection and the final decision without the involvement of the recused party. This applies equally to manuscripts authored by the Editor-in-Chief.

Author Disclosures. All authors are required to declare any financial, professional, or personal conflicts of interest that could be perceived as influencing their work. These disclosures or declarations are published with the article.

Publication Standards. The journal’s policies are aligned with the principles of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) at Welcome to COPE

Peer Review Policy

Simbolismo: Signs, Identities, Meanings is committed to a rigorous, fair, and confidential peer-review process that upholds the scholarly quality and integrity of everything it publishes.

Initial Editorial Screening

Each submission is first assessed by a handling editor for fit with the journal’s aims and scope, basic scholarly quality, ethical compliance, and originality (including a similarity check). Manuscripts that do not meet these threshold requirements will be declined without external review.

Review Process

Research articles undergo double-blind peer review, in which the identities of authors and reviewers are concealed from one another throughout the process. Each manuscript sent for review is evaluated by at least two independent reviewers.

Reviewer Selection

  • Reviewers are selected for subject-matter expertise relevant to the manuscript.
  • Reviewers must be independent of the authors with no recent collaboration, shared affiliation, or other perceived conflict of interest.
  • Reviewers are asked to declare any conflict of interest before accepting an assignment and to decline if one exists.

Evaluation Criteria

Reviewers assess originality and significance, soundness of methodology, validity of results and interpretation, clarity of presentation, appropriate use of the literature, and overall contribution to the field of semiotics and its related areas.

Editorial Decisions

On the basis of the manuscript reviews, the handling editor reaches one of the following decisions: accept; accept with minor revisions; accept with major revisions and re-review; or reject. Reports from reviewers advise the editorial decision, and authors receive the reviewers’ anonymised comments through the journal’s platform and workflow.

Submissions Involving Editors, Editorial Board Members, or the Publisher

Any manuscript authored by the Editor-in-Chief, a member of the Editorial Board, or a person affiliated with the publisher is handled by an independent co-editor or guest editor. The conflicted individual takes no part in reviewer selection or the manuscript decision.

Confidentiality and Ethics

Manuscripts under review are treated as confidential documents. Reviewers must not share, cite, or use the contents for any purpose. Suspected research or publication misconduct is investigated in accordance with COPE guidelines (See our section on Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement | Simbolismo: Signs, Identities, Meanings)

Indicative Timelines

The journal aims to return an initial decision within 4-6 weeks of submission. Authors are notified of any anticipated delays through the journal’s platform and workflow.

Appeals

Authors may appeal an editorial decision by writing to the Editor-in-Chief, stating the grounds for the appeal. Appeals are reviewed independently of the original decision.