The manuscripts that do not comply with the authors' guidelines or do not upload the required metadata will be directly returned to the authors by the Editorial Board, asking them to comply with the norms to start the evaluation process of their work. If the second version continues to violate the journal's rules, the manuscript will be definitively rejected. Likewise, the Editorial Board will verify that the work does not have a percentage of coincidence with other sources higher than 15% and that cannot be explained, rejecting those works that do not comply with this rule.

To guarantee objectivity in the evaluation of the quality of the articles and their adjustment to the objectives of the journal, the articles sent will be reviewed in the first instance by members of the Editorial Board or the International Scientific Committee, which may reject those investigations that do not conform to the objectives of Aula Abierta or whose quality or relevance is not considered sufficient. Check the average time to a first editorial decision.

In case the article is considered, the editor in charge of the work will request the evaluation of the article to a minimum of two reviewers, following the 'double blind' review modality. Given the reports received, the editor will send the editorial decision (accept the article, make changes or reject the article).

When the authors send a new version of their article, they must accompany it with a letter of changes (also anonymous), in which it explicitly indicates which of the suggested modifications have been made and which have not, showing in this second case the reason. The manuscript may be subjected to as many rounds of evaluation as the editor deems necessary, without this resulting in the tacit or implicit acceptance of the manuscript until the editorial decision is made. Check the average times for acceptance and rejection after peer review.

Once the manuscript has been accepted, the version containing all the information that had been blinded for the review will be sent, including, under the title, the full names, affiliations, email addresses, and ORCID identifiers of the authors, and own references that may have been blinded (both in the text citations and in the list of references) and, if necessary, a section of acknowledgments where the sources of funding will necessarily be included, if applicable.