About the Journal

Focus and Scope

General frame:

Ideas y Valoresisa four-monthly publication (April, August and December) of the Department of Philosophy of the Universidad Nacional de Colombia, founded in 1951, which welcomes national and international contributions. Throughout its more than sixty years of existence, the journal's objective has been to provide a space for the publication and dissemination of philosophical work carried out in Colombia. However, Ideas y Valores has always been in close contact with the philosophical work carried out in Latin America and the world. It currently publishes articles and reviews on all philosophical areas in Spanish, Portuguese and, occasionally, English. The journal also receives translations to Spanish of texts which have lost their copyrights or whose copyrights have been bought by or given to the translator and, by extension, to Ideas y Valores.

The journal also designs and publishes supplements on specific authors or topics whenever there are special academic events or at the request of the academic community (these supplements do not interfere with the journal's regular publishing schedule).

Note:

a. The authors' opinions are their own and exclusive responsibility and, therefore, they do not represent Ideas y Valores' or the Universidad Nacional de Colombia’s position regarding any topic.

b. The acceptance of advertisements does not imply Ideas y Valores’ or the Universidad Nacional de Colombia’s approval or endorsement of the advertised products or services.

Peer Review Process

2.1 Competence

a) Peer reviewers should only accept to read articles on subjects they have command of.

b) If, during the reading process, peer reviewers realize that they do not have sufficient knowledge of the topic, they should inform the editorial team so that another reviewer is appointed (ideasyvalores@gmail.com).

2.2 Independence

Peer review is carried out according to the double blind method in order to guarantee the independence and rigor of the opinions. If, at any point during the reading process, reviewers find that there is any type of ethical impediment or conflict of interest that could affect their opinion, they should inform the Editor as soon as possible so he decides if the situation is such that it needs the peer reviewer to be replacement.

2.3 Peer Reviewer Opinions

a) Peer reviewers are expected to approach the articles from a rigorous and coherent academic perspective. Opinions that are excessively brief and the use of weak arguments to approve or reject an article are not useful because they can give rise to justified responses by the authors, which would unnecessarily prolong the evaluation process.

b) What is to be evaluated is the presentation and the argumentative coherence of the text, regardless of whether the reviewer agrees with the ideas set forth in the paper.

c) The result of the evaluation must be useful for both the author and the Editor. It is expected that, on the basis of the evaluation, authors may be able to reformulate, correct, or validate their work, and the Editor may be able to make a well-argued decision regarding publication or rejection.

2.4 Diligence

a) Once peer reviewers accept the request for evaluation, they will have 60 days to submit their opinion.

b) If, during the evaluation process, it becomes evident that the agreed upon deadline will not be met, reviewers must inform the Editor in order to modify the initially established time period.

c) Please bear in mind that the timely response of the authors also relies on the reviewers' cooperation.

2.5 Impersonation

The Editor and his team ask reviewers to read articles after their academic preparation, research experience, and publications have been analyzed. Therefore, it is unacceptable to delegate the responsibility acquired to a third party (e.g. a co-researcher, graduate student, or others).

2.6 Use of Information

The manuscripts received by the reviewers are original and unpublished. Any inappropriate use or appropriation of the arguments, information, or parts of the text received shall be considered an extremely serious breach of ethics.

Open Access Policy

Open Access

The Creative Commons Attribution-NonComnercial-No Derivatives 4.0 Internacional License authorizes copying and redistributing the material in any means or format, provided that credit is granted to the authors and to Ideas y Valores as the source of the original publication. Copying or distributing the contents of the journal for commercial purposes is not allowed; neither is the adaptation, derivation, or transformation of the contents, without previous authorization by the authors and the editors of Ideas y Valores. For further information regarding the terms of this license, please consult http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/legalcode.

Estadísticas (Google Analytics - Users) (Visitas)

Sources of Support

Universidad Nacional de Colombia (Sede Bogotá). Facultad de Ciencias Humanas. Departamento de Filosofía

Departamento de Filosofía

Reviewer Guidelines

¿QUÉ SE DEBE TENER EN CUENTA AL EMITIR UN DICTAMEN SOBRE UN ARTÍCULO?

A la hora de emitir un dictamen sobre un artículo debe tenerse en cuenta que el documento será publicado en una revista científica. Por esa razón, su revisión debe ser exigente. No es necesario compartir las ideas del texto, pero sí debe considerarse si el artículo representa un aporte valioso para la discusión del tema en cuestión. Se recomienda que en el “Formato de evaluación”, y si se quiere en el cuerpo del documento mediante las herramientas control de cambios y comentarios, se justifiquen, de forma precisa y consistente, las razones para aprobar o rechazar el artículo. Idealmente el resultado de la evaluación ha de ser de provecho tanto para el autor como para el editor. Por ende, se espera que, a partir de esta, el autor pueda replantear, corregir o validar su trabajo y el editor pueda tomar una decisión argumentada sobre la publicación o rechazo del artículo.

Debe tenerse en cuenta no solo el contenido del escrito, sino también sus aspectos formales: la redacción, el manejo de lenguaje escrito, la claridad en la exposición, la articulación de las argumentaciones, etc. También debe valorarse si la bibliografía empleada da suficiente soporte a la tesis defendida en el artículo y muestra que el autor conoce las elaboraciones conceptuales más recientes o las más pertinentes para tratar el tema en cuestión.

Si en algún punto de la lectura del artículo se presenta algún impedimento ético o conflicto de intereses que pueda afectar la evaluación, este hecho debe ser informado al editor en el menor tiempo posible. Se presume que si el editor y su equipo convocan a un evaluador a colaborar en la lectura de un trabajo, luego de analizar su formación académica, trayectoria y experiencia en investigación, y publicaciones, este no transferirá la responsabilidad adquirida a un tercero (e.g. coinvestigador, estudiante de posgrado u otros).

Teniendo en cuenta que Ideas y Valores ha asumido unos plazos de entrega de los resultados de evaluación con los autores, si el cumplimiento del calendario de entrega pactado inicialmente resulta inviable, rogamos el favor de informar al editor para acordar otra fecha de entrega del dictamen.

Por último, en nombre del equipo editorial de Ideas y Valores, agradecemos enormemente la disposición de los colegas nacionales e internacionales para colaborarnos con la evaluación de los artículos, ayudándonos así a cumplir nuestra meta de contribuir a generar un diálogo constante entre las comunidades académicas que trabajan en el área de filosofía en todo el mundo.