1. The articles are submitted, and once anonymity is guaranteed, all texts (articles, essays, reviews, communiqués and notes) will be evaluated in the first instance, according to formal aspects, by the Director of the journal. In the case of insufficiencies in any of the formal requirements, they will be returned to the author specifying the problem and requesting a new version.

2. The articles that pass this first phase will be received by the Editor of the Journal of Philosophy UCSC to begin the evaluation process under the double-blind peer review system. This form of evaluation consists of each article being evaluated anonymously by at least two peer reviewers external to the institution and the editorial committee.

3. Once the formal requirements have been met and anonymity is guaranteed, the articles will be evaluated by at least two external peer reviewers using a double-blind peer review system, who will propose a recommendation according to the following criteria:
(a) The article meets the conditions for publication; therefore, its acceptance is suggested.
b) The article complies, in general, with the conditions for publication; however, it requires modifications, and therefore, it is suggested that it be accepted with modifications.
c) The article does not meet the conditions for publication; therefore, it is suggested that it be rejected.

4. Based on the reports submitted by the peer reviewers, the director will decide the following:
(a) Accept the article in which case the author is informed within the stipulated period.
b) Accepts the article with observations, in which case the author will be informed within the stipulated time limit of the observations and the time limit for their inclusion. The Director reserves the right to postpone the publication of the article in case of a delay in the second reception.
c) Reject the article in which the author will be informed and will be entitled to request a detailed report on its status.

If the external referee's decision is not satisfactory in evaluating the content (contradictory reports), the article is referred anonymously to one of the members of the Editorial Committee. According to the affinity of the subject, based on this second evaluation, the director will decide in accordance with the above points.

The peer review process in the journal lasted approximately eight weeks, between the time the article was received and the review opinion was sent.

The evaluation process is regulated according to its Ethical Policy, and there is management regarding conflicts of interest.