THEORIA is a biannual, opened access publication, edited by Bío-Bío University, that spreads original (unpublished) contributions in Spanish or English in the different fields of Science, Technology, Arts and Humanities, which are generated from within the university itself, from other national or foreign post-secondary educational institutions, or from public or private sector companies. It consists of two annual issues and it publishes: Articles, Reviews and Letters to the Editor. All of the contribution categories (except for letters to the editor) are subjected to peer review by the Editorial Board and two externals referees (Editorial Workflow explained below).

 

THEORIA reserves all the rights of reproduction of the content of the contributions and / or their indexing in electronic databases of digital journals. On the other hand, the opinions expressed by each author are their exclusive responsibility and do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the institution.

 

 

THEORIA has defined the following kinds of publication:

 

ARTICLE: A paper from an original research of scientific, technological, artistic or humanistic nature in which a problem or hypothesis is resolved through the design of an investigation. The article is to have a maximum length of 15 pages.

 

REVIEW: It presents the state of the art of a particular matter. It is restricted to authors that have demonstrated experience in the subject matter of the review and the paper cannot exceed 25 pages, taking into account the abstract, writing, bibliography, charts, notes and diagrams.

 

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR: The readers of the journal are invited to make comments on the papers published via “letters to the editor”. Letters to the editor are to be typed, double-spaced and signed by the author(s). The principal author of a paper which is mentioned will have the opportunity to respond to the editor before the publication of the corresponding letter.

 

All contributions must be written in Word and double-spaced, using arial 12 font. While preparing the electronic version, the following instructions must be taken into consideration:

 

1. The text is to be typed in the form of one continuous column.

2. Do not use the space bar for tabbing. Use the tab key.

3. The automatic pagination function which is incorporated into the word processor is to be used.

4. Charts are to be located at the end of the file, with the individual columns separated using the tab key (not

the space bar).

5. Once will receive the corresponding Theoria volume and reprints of his (her) contribution free of charge.

 

Articles or Reviews are to be organized according to the following guidelines:

 

1. TITLE PAGE. This page must contain:

 

1a. Kind of work.  Article or Review.

 

1b. Title of work. It must be concise and informative, considering that it is frequently used for material indexing. It must not include abbreviations, neologisms nor chemical formulae and it must be accompanied by an English translation immediately following the Spanish one.

 

1c. Author’s name. All authors who have directly participated in the execution of the work are to be indicated. Each author is to be identified by their full name. The main author must be situated first and is the one responsible for sending a letter from each one of the co-authors that figure in the investigation indicating their consent in the letter to the publishing of the article. The failure to receive this (these) document(s) will be cause for a delay in its publishing.

 

1d. Institution(s). To be indicated: Laboratory (when relevant), Department, Faculty, University, City, Country. To indicate the authors affiliation with different institutions, superscript numbers 1, 2, 3 are to be used after the name of each author.

 

1e. Author for correspondence. The author who is to receive correspondence is to be indicated with an asterisk at the end of his/her name, followed by his/her complete mailing address, phone number, fax number and e-mail address.

 

2. ABSTRACT. Must be written on a new page. The goal of the contribution, the theoretical framework, the basic methodology employed, the main findings and the conclusions are to be concisely stated (maximum 250 words). It must be intelligible without the need to consult the body of the paper, and abbreviations and specialized terminology must be avoided. An English translation of the abstract (resumen in Spanish) is to be included immediately following the Spanish version or viceversa. After the abstract, a list (in alphabetical order) of between 3 and 6 Keywords, along with their English translation, is to be included. The words may be simple or compound, appropriate for being used in material indexing. In the case of an author not providing this information, the journal reserves the right to supply the suitable words.

 

3. TEXT. Must begin on a new page. The text, in the case of summaries, essays and reviews are to be organizad according to the epigraphs that the author stipulates. In the case of an article, the text of the contribution MUST be organized in the following sections or have an equivalent format in the case of articles in the areas of arts or humanities:

 

3a. Introduction. This section must present bibliographic references that are strictly relevant to the theme as opposed to an exhaustive review of the theme. The aim of the work as well as the hypothesis or problem are to be included.

 

3b. Materials and Methods. The description must be brief but sufficiently explicit enough to allow for the reproduction of the results. The design of the experiment must indicate the number of subjects involved in the study and the number of calculations in each case. Binomial Latin names are to be written in italics. Precise information pertaining to the statistical analysis applied is to be included, as well as, when relevant, how the results are expressed.

 

3c. Results. In this section, the achievements are described without discussing their significance. Whenever it is possible to do so, the author must present quantitative evaluations of their results, as well as information concerning the variability and statistic significance of the results obtained. The average values must be accompanied by either the standard deviation or the standard error from the mean, but not both, indicating which of these statistics is used and the number of observations from which they derive. The data must be presented in charts or diagrams without repeating this information in the text.

 

3d. Discussion and Conclusions. This section must be concise, emphasizing new and important aspects of the study and the conclusion which emerges from these. The author must center the discussion on the interpretation of the results achieved in the study, and contrast these with those obtained by other authors.

 

3e. Acknowledgments. (optional) Indicate the source of funding and appreciation to people that made an important contribution to the study and that authorize – by means of a letter - the mention of their name in the publication. This letter must be sent by the main author along with the other documents.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The following is the editorial workflow that every manuscript submitted to the journal undergoes during the course of the peer-review process.

 

Once a manuscript is submitted, the manuscript is assigned to member of the Editorial Board (an Editor) most appropriate to handle it based on the subject of the manuscript and the availability of the Editors. If the Editor determines that the manuscript is not of sufficient quality to go through the normal review process or if the subject of the manuscript is not appropriate to the journal scope, the Editor rejects the manuscript with no further processing. If the Editor determines that the submitted manuscript is of sufficient quality and falls within the scope of the journal, he/she assigns the manuscript to a minimum of 2 and a maximum of 3 external reviewers for peer-review. The reviewers submit their reports on the manuscripts along with their recommendation of one of the following actions to the Editor:

 

 

When all reviewers have submitted their reports, the Editor can make one of the following editorial recommendations:

 

 

If the Editor recommends “Publish Unaltered,” the manuscript is accepted for publication.

 

If the Editor recommends “Review Again after Minor Changes,” the authors are notified to prepare and submit a final copy of their manuscript with the required minor changes suggested by the reviewers. Only the Editor, and not the external reviewers, reviews the revised manuscript after the minor changes have been made by the authors. Once the Editor is satisfied with the final manuscript, the manuscript can be accepted.

 

If the Editor recommends “Review Again after Major Changes,” the recommendation is communicated to the authors. The authors are expected to revise their manuscripts in accordance with the changes recommended by the reviewers and to submit their revised manuscript in a timely manner. Once the revised manuscript is submitted, the original reviewers are contacted with a request to review the revised version of the manuscript. Along with their review reports on the revised manuscript, the reviewers make a recommendation which can be “Publish Unaltered” or “Publish after Minor Changes” or “Reject.”

 

The Editor can then make an editorial recommendation which can be “Publish Unaltered” or “Review Again after Minor Changes” or “Reject.”

 

If the Editor recommends rejecting the manuscript, the rejection is immediate. Also, if two of the reviewers recommend rejecting the manuscript, the rejection is immediate.

 

The editorial workflow gives the Editors the authority in rejecting any manuscript because of inappropriateness of its subject, lack of quality, or incorrectness of its results. The Editor cannot assign himself/herself as an external reviewer of the manuscript. This is to ensure a high-quality, fair, and unbiased peer-review process of every manuscript submitted to the journal, since any manuscript must be recommended by one or more (usually two or more) external reviewers along with the Editor in charge of the manuscript in order for it to be accepted for publication in the journal. The peer-review process is double blinded, i.e., the reviewers do not know who the authors of the manuscript are and the authors do not have access to the information of who the peer-reviewers are.