Submissions

Author Guidelines

Submissions

Registration and login are required to submit items online and to check the status of current submissions.

Author guidelines

1. Invitation and scope

Authors are invited to make a submission to this journal. All submissions are first assessed by the Editorial Coordination to determine whether they meet the journal's aims and scope. Submissions deemed relevant undergo a double-blind peer-review process before acceptance or rejection is determined.

Regiones y Desarrollo Sustentable adheres to the ethical principles and best practices established by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), which govern all stages of the editorial process. Authors, reviewers, and editors are expected to be familiar with and to comply with these principles (see section 7).

2. General submission requirements

Texts must conform to the journal's content types: Articles, Documents, Reviews, and Dossier. Submissions are made through the Online Submissions section of this platform, in a Word word-processing file.

2.1. Abstract, keywords, and translation. Every submission must include an abstract in Spanish and its English translation, as well as five keywords selected in accordance with the United Nations Thesaurus, with their English translation. These elements facilitate indexing and international dissemination.

2.2. Language. Texts originally written in another language must include their Spanish translation. For texts in Spanish, the English translation of the title, abstract, and keywords is required.

3. Manuscript formatting

3.1. Clarity and precision. Language must be clear and precise.

3.2. Format. Word file; 2.54 cm margins on all sides; Times New Roman 12 pt; double line spacing; justified text. Length according to content type (see the section on content types).

3.3. Figures. Figures (illustrations, infographics, photographs, charts, diagrams, maps) are inserted after their first mention, must contribute substantially to the understanding of the work, and must not be redundant. Each figure must include a number, a short title, captions, and notes (source, symbols, abbreviations). Minimum resolution of 300 dpi; figures must also be submitted as separate files.

3.4. Tables. Tables are inserted after their first mention, in grayscale, using the same font type and size as the body text, with 1.5 or double line spacing. No vertical borders or cell outlines. If a table spans several pages, the header row is repeated. Each table must include a number, a short title, and explanatory notes.

4. Content structure

Manuscript structure depends on the content type:

• Empirical research articles: presented in the IMRaD format —Introduction, Methods, Results, and Discussion— followed by Conclusions and References.
• Documents, essays, and review articles: organized into Introduction, Development, Conclusions (and, where applicable, Recommendations), and References.

In both cases: the Introduction sets out the relevance of the problem and its implications; the Development / Methods–Results–Discussion presents the approach, findings, and their analysis, supported by data and evidence; the Conclusionsinterpret and assess the information; and the References list all cited sources.

5. Style and citation

No more than two heading levels are to be used, numbered in Arabic numerals. The citation system is APA 7 (author–date). Every source cited in the text must appear in the reference list.

Example: (Rodríguez, 2021) — Rodríguez, A. (2021). Las reglas de las referencias. El Colegio de Tlaxcala, A. C.

5.1. Copyediting. Authors are advised to have their texts undergo a lexical-grammatical and stylistic review before submission.

6. Inclusive, non-sexist language

In keeping with gender-equality policies and the recommendations of the United Nations, the journal promotes the use of inclusive, non-sexist language. Authors are asked to:

• Prioritize generic, collective, or abstract nouns without gender marking.
• Use impersonal or passive constructions where clarity is not compromised.
• Use parenthetical forms sparingly and consistently when indispensable.
• Avoid the use of the at sign (@), the letter "x," or the letter "e" as gender markers, as these lack normative support and hinder readability and accessibility.
• Maintain internal consistency of the chosen style throughout the document.

Full names and ORCID. Manuscripts must include the full name of each author, and providing each author's ORCIDidentifier is mandatory. In the reference list, the full names of cited authors must be given, in accordance with APA 7.

7. Publication ethics and COPE principles

The journal adheres to the guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) (https://publicationethics.org/), which govern the ethical conduct of authors, editors, and reviewers at all stages of the editorial process.

7.1. Responsibilities of authors.

• Originality and plagiarism. The manuscript must be an entirely original work; any ideas, data, or text from others must be duly cited and referenced. Plagiarism in any form will result in immediate rejection.
• Multiple or redundant publication. The manuscript must not have been previously published or be under simultaneous review elsewhere.
• Authorship and contribution. Authorship is limited to those who have made substantial intellectual contributions, in accordance with the ICMJE criteria (maximum of three authors for Articles). Contributions that do not qualify for authorship are acknowledged in the Acknowledgments section.
• Accuracy of data. Authors must present their data accurately and honestly; fabrication, falsification, or manipulation of data is a serious violation. Authors must provide the original data if requested.
• Conflicts of interest. Any financial, institutional, or personal conflict of interest must be declared in the manuscript.
• Funding sources. All sources of funding must be explicitly identified.
• Errors in published works. Upon discovering a significant error in their own published work, authors must promptly notify the editor and cooperate in its correction or retraction.
• Ethical approval. Research involving human subjects or animals must have the approval of the relevant institutional ethics committee and, where applicable, informed consent, with reference made in the manuscript.

7.2. Responsibilities of reviewers. The journal uses a double-blind peer-review system. Reviewers undertake to: maintain confidentiality and not use the information for personal benefit; evaluate objectively and without bias; declare any conflict of interest and, where appropriate, recuse themselves; and meet the established deadlines. In accordance with COPE, no AI tool may be used to automatically generate review reports; the use of AI is valid only as a support (preliminary similarity screening, clarity improvement, organization of comments, identification of formal inconsistencies), never as a substitute for specialized academic judgment. Responsibility for the review report rests exclusively with the reviewer.

7.3. Editorial responsibilities. The editorial team undertakes to: make acceptance or rejection decisions based solely on the quality, originality, clarity, and relevance of the manuscript; ensure the confidentiality and impartiality of the process; not use unpublished materials without consent; publish corrections, retractions, or clarifying notes when necessary; and follow the COPE flowcharts in cases of suspected misconduct.

7.4. Misconduct and procedure. Any suspicion of misconduct —plagiarism, data fabrication, duplicate publication, undeclared authorship conflicts, or manipulation of the review process— will be investigated in accordance with the procedures and flowcharts of COPE, regardless of when it is detected. Corrective actions may include rejection of the manuscript, retraction of the published article, notification of the authors' affiliated institutions, and communication with the competent bodies.

7.5. Complaints and appeals. The decision on the academic merit of a manuscript is final. Nevertheless, authors may submit a complaint or appeal on procedural grounds —alleged bias, reviewer conflict of interest, or procedural defect— addressed to the Editorial Coordination at [institutional email]. Complaints are handled in accordance with COPE guidelines; the Editorial Coordination will issue a reasoned resolution and, where warranted, may order a new review.

8. Originality screening and use of artificial intelligence

8.1. Similarity screening. Every manuscript received undergoes textual similarity screening using iThenticate(Crossref's Similarity Check service). The maximum admissible similarity rate is 15%. Any identified overlap must be reviewed and, where appropriate, corrected before peer review. Authors are responsible for ensuring the originality of the content and the adequate citation of all sources. Repeated or unjustified exceedance of the threshold, or the detection of plagiarism, leads to rejection under section 7.

8.2. Use of artificial intelligence. In accordance with COPE, AI tools may not be listed as authors, since authorship entails legal and ethical responsibilities that cannot be delegated.

• Permitted uses: lexical-grammatical correction and improvement of clarity and style. AI may not be used to generate academic content (ideas, analysis, arguments, data, or conclusions), which must be entirely original and of human authorship.
• Mandatory declaration: any use of AI must be explicitly declared in a specific section of the manuscript (Acknowledgments or footnote), indicating the tools used and the purposes.
• Responsibility: the author is solely responsible for the content. Any error or lack of originality arising from the use of AI is the author's direct responsibility; undeclared use is considered a breach of academic integrity and may lead to rejection or retraction.

The assessment of improper or undeclared use of AI is carried out through editorial judgment, the evaluation of the text's argumentative consistency, traceability, and authorial accountability, and a request for clarification from the author where appropriate. (The journal does not attribute "AI-detection" capability to similarity-screening tools, as such detection is technologically inconclusive.)

9. Review process

All articles, documents, and reviews undergo a first phase of relevance assessment and, subsequently, a double-blind review by external and internal referees. Publication is determined when at least two reports are positive.

9.1. First phase. The Editorial Coordination and the coordinator of each issue select the works that fit the editorial line and meet the quality standards of the content type.

9.2. Second phase. Two or three specialists evaluate the work, considering: relevance and originality of the topic; soundness of the stated objectives; consistency of the discussion and contribution to the field; precision and coherence of the methodology; correspondence between theoretical argument, empirical evidence, and objectives; and the currency and consistency of the sources.

9.3. Outcome. Accepted (A); Not accepted (NA); Accepted with minor revisions (AMm); Accepted with major revisions (AMM). The decision on the merits is final, without prejudice to the right of complaint or appeal on procedural grounds set out in section 7.5.

Manuscripts by authors of the publishing institution. Works authored by individuals affiliated with El Colegio de Tlaxcala, A. C. are reviewed exclusively by referees external to the institution.

10. Notification and revisions

The average duration of the review process is four to six months. Once the process is complete, the reviewers' comments are sent to the author. In the case of revisions, the author must confirm their willingness and submit the new version within the indicated period; failure to respond within a maximum of 15 business days results in the text being deemed rejected and archived. The revised version must be accompanied by a report detailing the changes made and justifying any observations not addressed. The Editorial Coordination will decide whether the work proceeds to publication planning or to a new review. Before final publication, the author will be asked to approve the definitive version.

11. Responsibilities and permissions

Before submitting, authors must obtain the necessary permissions to publish any third-party material (photographs, documents, datasets). All individuals identified as co-authors must have given their consent. Where applicable, the research must have the approval of an ethics committee, in accordance with the legal requirements of the country of the study and the principles established by COPE.

12. Submission quality

The Editorial Coordination may reject a submission that does not meet minimum quality standards. The title must be concise, and the abstract (with its English translation) must be self-contained and clear. The use of the submission checklist is recommended.

13. Required declarations upon submission

Upon submission, authors must include or confirm: a declaration of originality; a declaration of authorship and contribution; a declaration of conflicts of interest; a declaration of funding; a declaration of ethical approval (where applicable); and a declaration on the use of AI (tools and stages).

Note. These guidelines are based on the recommendations of COPE, the Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing (COPE, DOAJ, OASPA, and WAME), the APA 7 style manual, and the United Nations guidance on inclusive language.

Submission preparation checklist

• The submission complies with the Author Guidelines.
• The submission is original and has not been submitted to another journal.
• The submission includes an abstract in Spanish and English and five keywords (UN Thesaurus) with their translation.
• The ORCID of all authors is provided.
• References are complete and verified in accordance with APA 7.
• Tables and figures are numbered, labeled, and meet the formatting requirements.
• Permission has been obtained to publish all third-party material (images, datasets, etc.).
• The required declarations are included (originality, authorship, conflicts of interest, funding, ethical approval, and use of AI).

Content types

Articles. Present results of original research on regional development that constitute an advance in the field. Length: 16 to 30 pages (including references, notes, tables, and figures). IMRaD format. Maximum of three authors, listed in order of contribution.

Documents. Review articles, state-of-the-art surveys, essays, bibliographic reviews, technical reports, letters, and commentaries on topics relevant to regional sciences. Maximum length: 15 pages. One author only.

Reviews. A critical reading of works relevant to regional development. Length: 2 to 4 pages. One author only.

Dossier. Special issues on various topics related to regional development.