Roles and responsibilities of the academic board

Editor:

- Selection Procedure: The journal’s editor is appointed by the Director of the Publications Service of the Universitat de València, having been elected by the editorial board, and with the approval of a majority of the academic board.

- Duties: The journal’s editor is its main academic manager: s/he channels proposed articles to the editorial board for a first review (formats and language quality), and to potential peer-reviewers for a second (academic quality and contents). In the choice of reviewers, the editor can seek the advice of the members of the academic board.

Editorial board:

- Composition: The editorial board consists of five people: the director, secretary and three advisors. A small editorial board has been preferred in order to give the journal greater flexibility and functionality.

- Selection: Members are proposed and selected by the same procedure as the editor.

- Proportion: the editorial board will have at least a 33% presence of members external to the publishing institution (Universitat de València).

- Functions: Board members support the editor in her/his functions. The editorial board monitors the progress of submitted works (receipt and processing, including the first assessment of the quality of language and formats), and establishes guidelines on the contents and style of the journal.

Academic board:

- Composition: The academic board consists of a number of members between eight and twelve people.

- Selection: New board members are appointed by the academic advice editor, with the approval of the rest of the academic board.

- Proportion: The presence of members of the publisher (Universitat de València) in the academic board should not exceed 10%.

- Features: The academic board, besides endorsing the journal’s commitment to the highest standards, advises on editorial policy, and endeavours to spread awareness of the journal in all professional forums. The editor may also seek its members’ advice on the choice of peer-reviewers.

 

Control, audit and self-evaluation of the journal

A scientific journal must periodically self-evaluate itself in different aspects. Annually, the Magnificado CLM editorial team will hold a meeting, physical or virtual, in which it will assess the overall quality of its evaluation criteria, web forms and protocols, evaluation reports, published papers and the role of reviewers. In the light of the data and opinions collected from the different agents (readers, reviewers, authors, editorial board and advisory board), the possibility of improvements in the different aspects of the journal will be considered.

--Opinion of the readers
The opinion of the readers will be continuously collected through the presence of Magnificado CLM in social networks and ScienceOpen.com, as well as in its blog. Through these platforms, opinions will be collected on the originality, significance, novelty, timeliness and methodological quality of Magnificado CLM articles, which will be taken into account in the annual self-evaluation.

--Opinion of the editorial team
The members of the editorial team also carry out a continuous work of evaluation of the different agents: they gather the opinions of the readers; they interact with the authors, also gathering their opinions in the process; they evaluate the work of the reviewers in each issue, as well as the work of the scientific council, which will inform on the editorial policy to be followed by the journal. All these elements, as mentioned above, are shared and, if necessary, give rise to modifications at the journal's annual self-evaluation meeting.

--Reviewers' opinions
The journal requests opinions and suggestions for improvement from all its reviewers, within the evaluation form itself (see question 15 of the evaluation form to be completed by the reviewers), each time they write a report. These opinions are evaluated and, if necessary, incorporated into the annual self-evaluation meeting.

--Authors' opinions
Once an issue has been published, Magnificado CLM is open to receive feedback from authors on the following points of the editorial process: manuscript evaluation criteria, review periods, review protocols and review quality.