Login or Register to make a submission.

As part of the submission process, authors are required to check off their submission's compliance with all of the following items, and submissions may be returned to authors that do not adhere to these guidelines.

  • The manuscript is unpublished and has not been submitted for publication elsewhere.
  • The submitted file is in Microsoft Word, OpenOffice or RTF format.
    The text must have single line spacing, a 12 point font, and must use cursive rather than underline (except for URLs). All illustrations, figures and tables must be positioned correctly, and not at the end of the text.
  • The article meets all requirements set in the Author Guidelines page in "About the Journal".

Originality of the work, languages of publication and evaluation process

Any work proposed for publication in Anàlisi should pay attention to the editorial line and follow the publishing guidelines set out in this section.

The journal accepts originals in Catalan, Spanish and English.

Anàlisi only publishes original work: any articles sent should not have been published beforehand or be undergoing assessment by any other journal. Very exceptionally, the Editorial Committee may recommend the translation of an article disseminated in another publication owing to its relevance.

After evaluation by the Publishing Committee, all articles received go through an blind peer review process by assessors appointed by the Editorial Committee.

Anàlisi admits academic essays whenever imply rigorous theoretical reflections of professors of recognized prestige and wide trajectory that contribute new knowledge to the analysis of the social reality and the communicative panorama. The extension can range between 4,000 and 6,000 words. The text must be well-founded, justified and referenced. Like all the other papers, it will be supervised by blind evaluation.

 

Blind peer review process

Anàlisi believes in a blind review process of the papers. The evaluation process shall be directed towards proposals for improvements or modifications that unambiguously help authors to improve their works, but shall never involve sanctions or impracticable revision proposals.

We see the review process as an dialogue between authors and reviewers, the sole purpose of which should be the improvement of the paper, in order to disseminate precise knowledge that promotes discussion and knowledge exchange in the scientific community.

Stages in the process of evaluating a paper

The time required to perform the evaluation process will be approximately three months

  1. Stage 1: sending of the original via the journal’s own platform. All the registration fields and steps must be completed. Then use the log in system to proceed.

  2. Stage 2: acceptance for the evaluation process by the journal’s Publishing Board. This stage can have two outcomes: (1) the Publishing Board may decline to publish the paper if it does not meet the journal’s criteria regarding subject matter and format; or (2) the Publishing Board begins the process of evaluation by external reviewers.

  3. Stage 3: notification to the author of the result of stage 2.

  4. Stage 4: evaluation of the original by external reviewers over a period of approximately 20 days.

  5. Stage 5: notification to the journal management of the evaluation process result, from the reviewers.

  6. Stage 6: notification to the author of the result of the evaluation.

The author shall receive a qualitative review with advice and comments that help them to improve their paper, as well as a quantitative review.

In order to improve their evaluation score, the author may resubmit their paper as many times as they see fit, provided it has passed the first stage of the review process involving the Publishing Board.

Formal criteria

All articles that are sent to the Editorial Committee of Anàlisi for consideration must include the following information:

  • Title.

  • Title in Spanish or Catalan. 

  • ORCID identifier, if available. Anàlisi. Quaderns de Comunicació i Cultura, recommends authors to register in https://orcid.org/ in order to obtain an ORCID identifier.

  • Abstract (of 200-300 words) with the essential aspects and results of the work.

  • Abstract in Spanish.

  • Keywords (between 4 and 6).

  • Keywords (between 4 and 6) in English if this is not the original language.

  • Body of the article, organised in sections and subsections.

  • Bibliography

Originals should be submitted in electronic file format and may not under any circumstances exceed 6,000 words, including the body of the article, abstracts, notes and bibliography.

The bibliography must be acceptable and up-to-date. It is recommended that the authors mentioned would be approximately twenty, most of them from recent years and come from university academic journals, part of them in English.

It is recommended that self-citations [quotes from the author of the article] or self-references [citations to other articles published in the same journal] should not exceed 20% of the total.

Articles may include notes, providing they are essential, which should be placed at the foot of the page.

Quotes should be inserted in the text following the Harvard or parenthetical system, e.g. (Sartori, 1998: 123). Letters (a, b, c...) should be used to distinguish different work by the same author and year.

Graphs, tables and pictures that are interspersed in the text should also be sent in a separate file. These should be numbered and have a caption that identifies the content. We recommend that they should be restricted to no more than ten. Tables should be numbered using Roman numerals (Table I) and graphs with Arabic figures (Figure 1).

Bibliographical references

It is compulsory that the author checks all article references against CrossRef database through the Simple Text Query Service in order to include al existing Digital Object Identifiers (DOI).

These should also be obligatorily presented following the ISO 690 standard (INTERNATIONAL STANDARD ORGANIZATION), as shown in the following examples (check also our latest papers published for more examples of Bibliographical references)

a) Books or dossiers

SURNAME(S), Initial(s) of the forename. (year). Title. Edition number. Place of publication. Publisher. Length and material details. (Collection; number).

Examples:

CASTELLS, M. (1997). La era de la información. La sociedad red. Madrid: Alianza, 2000. 2nd. ed., vol. 1

SHANE, P. M. (ed.) (2004). Democracy online: The prospects for political renewal through the Internet. New York: Routledge.

b) For parts of books, contributions in a miscellany, compilations

SURNAME(S), Initial(s) of the forename. (year). "Title of the part of the book". At: Bibliographical details of the complete work, location of the part of the book.

If the author or editor of the book is the same as the part of the book being quoted:

Example:

KOLLOCK, P. (2003). "Regalos y bienes públicos en el ciberespacio". In: M. SMITH, P. KOLLOCK (ed.). Comunidades en el ciberespacio. Barcelona: Editorial UOC. 1st. ed., pp. 259-282.

If the author or editor of the book is not the same as the part of the book being quoted:

Example:

BAYM, N. K. (1998) "The Emergence of On-line Community". A: S. G. Jones (ed.). Cybersociety 2.0. Revisting Computer Mediated Commmunications and Community

 

c) For periodical publications

Title: subtitle (year). Vol. Issue Place of publication. Publisher. Frequency.

Example:

Revista de Universidad y Sociedad del Conocimiento (RUSC). Vol. 2. Issue 1. UOC. Twice a year

d) For articles in periodical publications

SURNAME(S), Initial(s) of the forename. (year). "Title of the article". Title of the journal or manual. Vol., issue number, pp, start-end page.

Example:

COLL, C. (2004). "Psicología de la educación y prácticas educativas mediadas miedo las tecnologías de la información y la comunicación. Una mirada constructivista". Sinéctica. Issue 25, separata, pp. 1-24.

e) For electronic documents

SURNAME(S), Initial(s) of the forename. (year). Title of the work [content unit + type of medium]. Publisher. [Date consulted: dd/mm/yy]. <URL>

Example:

TRÉNEL, M. (2004). Measuring the quality of online deliberation. Coding scheme 2.4 [on line]. Berlín: Social Science Research Center. [Date consulted: 06/06/05].

 

THESIS

The purpose of this section is to help spread news of new lines of study and of progress made by researchers who have recently completed their doctorates, through reviews of the defended theses. The reviews may be sent by the author of the thesis or by a member of the publication’s Publishing Board or Editorial Board, which will post notifications on doctoral theses recently published openly in any of the existing institutional repositories.

The publication of reviews will not be subject to any peer review processes, indexing, or criteria relating to the publication frequency of the journal, as they will be updated on the web site periodically.