Focus and Scope

Published since 2006, the Revista Mexicana de Opinión Pública  (RMOP) is aimed at both Mexican and foreign researchers who are interested in presenting articles that pose research questions and relevant findings in the field of public opinion, electoral political behavior and the political communication. The RMOP has started a new stage in which works that generate valid causal inferences based on robust methodological designs and solid empirical evidence will be favored.

Peer Review Process

Articles will be submitted to a "peer review" examination, which will be made by specialists through the site revistas.unam.mx, hosted on the Open Journal Systems (ojs) platform: http://www.revistas.unam.mx/index.php/rmop/. In order to do so, the title page (s) of the author (s) will be omitted on the cover of the works, which will take care of their anonymity during the judgment process. Also, in each collaboration a separate sheet will be added separately with the author (s) name (s), job title, address and telephone number. The specialists who will act as reviewers will preferably be outside the institution that publishes the rmop, that is, outside the Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México (unam). The expert reviewers can’t belong to the same institution to which the author (s) of the article belongs.

The opinion specialists, after having read and analyzed the article, will complete and develop, in the form of an opinion, the following aspects to be evaluated:

a) Thematic relevance and originality.

b) Discussion of the subject and contribution to the progress of the discipline.

c) Consistency and structure of the exposure of objectives.

d) Orientation of the line of argumentation (or of the empirical evidence towards the foundation of the essential approaches).

e) Evaluation of the use and updating of sources.

f) Correspondence of the methodology with the objectives of the research and/or theoretical reflection.

g) Other observations not included in the previous sections.

FORMATO DE DICTAMEN

Título  del artículo:

Favor de marcar la opción que corresponda:

* En Open Journal Systems, este resultado equivale a la decisión “Aceptar envío”.

** En Open Journal Systems, este resultado equivale a la decisión “Se necesitan revisiones”.

*** En Open Journal Systems, este resultado equivale a la decisión “Reenviar para revisión”.

**** En Open Journal Systems, este resultado estaría comprendido en la decisión “Rechazar envío”.

The results of the "peer review " examination process may be as follows::

a)  If both scores are positive (Publicable-Publicable), the article will be publishable, as long as it also complies with the guidelines of the RMOP.

b) If both opinions prove to be (Publicable condicionado a cambios y sugerencias del dictamen), that is, Publicable subject to changes and suggestions of the opinion, the author (s) should attend to all the suggestions of the opinion. Subsequently, the article will be sent to collation, preferably with the two specialists who gave it, so that they can analyze and verify if the author or authors complied with the request in the opinion.

c) If both opinions are negative (No publicable-No publicable), that is Not publishable-Not publishable, or the article is ruled as Fuera de la línea editorial de la revista, in English, Out of the editorial line of the journal, the article can not be published in it and will be considered rejected.

d)  Sometimes an article receives a positive and a negative opinion, so that any of the following situations may occur:

• The article could be considered as No publicable en su estado actual. Reenviar para una nueva dictaminación, that is, Not publishable in its current state. Forward to a new opinion, so that the opinion will be sent to the author or authors in order that, based on the suggestions of the evaluators, modify the article and the article is submitted to a new process of opinion.

• If the opinions received imply very different points of view, the article will be sent to a third evaluator, who will help define, with his/her evaluation, the final decision of the decision process.

      Once the opinions are received, the analysis of cases where there are contrasts or differences between one reviwer (judge) and another (or others), the coordinator of the number, together with two or three members of the Consejo Editorial who are supporting the process of opinion will be given to the task of analyzing the arguments received to choose the final decision and to decide whether or not to publish said article.

      The evaluation process lasts approximately 15 working days after receipt of the article. In the event that it needs to undergo a new evaluation, it will have to be considered 7 working days more after a new specialist agrees to participate in this stage of the assessment process.

      After the author (s) submits their article with the modifications that the reviewers requested, another 7 working days will be considered for the article's comparison.

     In the event that the Revista Mexicana de Opinión Pública does not receive the second version of an article with the necessary modifications to be sent to the collation (if the opinion was Publicable condicionado a cambios y sugerencias del dictamen), that is, Publicable subject to changes and suggestions of the opinion, or to a new examination process (if the opinion was No publicable en su estado actual. Reenviar para una nueva dictaminación), in English, Not publishable in its current state. Forward to a new opinion,  it will be considered as rejected.

The Revista Mexicana de Opinión Pública will occasionally admit a proposal for a review of some truly important book for analysis and reflection on public opinion. It will also be subject to a judgment process before at least one specialist. If necessary, the decision on the pertinence of its publication will fall on the Consejo Editorial. The aspects to be evaluated are:

            a)  Contents of the review.

            b) Quality of the review.

            c) Clarity and logical consistency.

            d) Writing (cohesion and coherence).

            e) Comments.

RMOP format for the dictamination of a book review 

Publication Frequency

Periodicity of the review : Biannual

Open Access Policy

This review provides open immediate access to its content under the principle that making available research to public, supports a bigger number of exchanges of global knowledge.

Founding Director

Doctor of Social Science in Sociology from the Colegio de Mexico. He is also full time professor in the Facultad de Ciencias Políticas y Sociales in the area of Sociology, and belongs to the National System of Researchers.
Among its research highlights the issues of sociological theory, political philosophy and public opinion. The books he authored recently (2012) published are La lucha por la opinión pública en 2006,  and, in 2004, La crisis de la sociología académica en  Mexico.
Founded in 2005, the Revista Mexicana de Opinión Pública. He was director of the Facultad de Ciencias Políticas y Sociales of the Universidad Nacional Autonóma de México (UNAM) froma 2009 to 20013 and from 2013 till 2016. sabido@servidor.unam.mx

Centro de Estudios de Opinión Pública

Rodrigo Perera Ramos, Coordinator

Design

Rosa Maria Díaz Álvarez (from the cover of RMOP 1). Ernesto Emiliano Morales Escartín (cover and interiors, RMOP 6 onwards)

Ethical code and declaration about negligence

• Responsibilities or behavior of Editorial Committee:

 The Editorial Committee defines and makes public the norms for article publishing in the review.

Chooses the texts that correspond to the editorial profile of the review and  comply with essential academic requirements  of a scientific article related with public opinion

Encourages academic and scientific standards of the review’s contents.

Defines evaluation criteria and communicate them to the authors.

Ensures revision processes compliancy (peer review) taking care that selected works are ruled by two or more specialists of the subject concerned and keeping anonymity both within authors and reviewers

The Editorial Committee will always be disposed to justify and analyze whatever controversy in the evaluation process.

Responsibilities or behavior of the editor:

The editor is responsible for all what is published in the review. He must make an effort to satisfy the needs of readers and authors; to improve constantly the review; to assure the quality of material being published; to perform the tasks required to increase the academic and scientific standards of the review.

Likewise, the editor must be disposed to publish corrections, clarifications, retractions and apologies whenever necessary. 

The decision of the editor to either accept or reject a work for its publication must be based exclusively on the importance of the article, its originality, its clarity and the pertinence that the work would represent for the review.

 The editor engages to warrantee the confidentiality within the process of evaluation; he/she should not reveal the identity of the authors to the reviewers. Neither he/she should reveal the identity of reviewers at any time.

The editor is responsible of deciding which articles and from which established directives and criteria it could be accepted for publication in the review, the Editorial Committee taking the final decision about the articles being published.

The editor assumes responsibility of informing the author on time about the phase of the editorial process in which the text is as well as of the resolutions of evaluation.

 An editor must evaluate the manuscripts and their intellectual content without distinction of race, gender, sexual orientation, religious creed, ethnic origin, nationality or political philosophy of the authors.

The editor and whatever member of the editorial team will not divulgate any information about the sent manuscript to any person that is not the according author, reviewers or potential reviewers or editorial advisers.

None of the unpublished material made known in a sent text will be used in personal researches of the editor without the stated written compliance of the author. The privileged information or ideas received by the peer revision will be confidential and will not be used to obtain personal advantages.

The editor must take faire and impartial decisions and warrantee a fair and appropriate process of peer reviewing.

The authors must warrantee that their manuscripts are the product of their original work and that the data has been collected in an ethical way. Moreover, they must warrantee that their works have not been previously published or that they are not being considered in another publication. It will be considered a work previously published when:

a)    Complete text has been published;

b)    Extensive fragments from previously published material are part of the sent text to the review;

c)    The work submitted to the review is contained in extensively published memoirs.

This criteria refer previous publications either print or electronic and in whatever language.

For publication of their works, authors must strictly follow norms of the Instructive for collaborators defined by the Editorial Committee.

The authors must present a precise description of the work done as well as an objective discussion of its importance. Underlying data should be represented with precision in the article. A document must contain enough detail and references to allow others to use the work. Fraudulent declarations or deliberately inexactly constitute little ethical behavior which is unacceptable.

The authors should assure themselves that what they have written original works in its totality and if the authors have used the work and or words of others, these should be properly quoted. Plagiarism in all its forms constitutes a non-ethical and unacceptable editorial conduct. In consequence, whatever manuscript incurs in plagiarism will be eliminated and will not be considered for publication.

An author should not, in general, publish the manuscripts that describe essentially the same research in more than one review or primary publication. The presentation of the same manuscript to more than one review constitutes an unethical behavior and publication unacceptable.

The sources should be recognized adequately. Authors should cite publications that have been influential in the nature of the work presented. Information obtained in a private way; like in conversations or correspondences and discussions with a third party should not be used without a written permission of the source.

Authorship must be limited to those that have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution or interpretation of the study. All of those who have made significant contributions should appear as co-authors. The principal author(s) should be ensured that all the coauthors are included in the article, and that all who have seen and approved the final version of the document have accorded its presentation for publication.

All the authors should reveal in their manuscript any conflict of financial funds or other interests that could influence in the results or interpretation of their manuscript. All sources of financial support for the project should be revealed.

When an author discovers an error or a significant incorrectness in his/her published text is his/her obligation to notify immediately to the review’s principal or to the Editorial Committee and cooperate with the editor for retracting or correcting his/her work.

Responsibilities of reviewers

The reviewers are engaged to notify about any unethical conduct of the authors and signal all information that could be motive for rejecting article publication. Likewise, they must engage to keep information of the articles under evaluation in a confidential way. For the revision of works, reviewers must count with directives to perform the task. These directives must be furnished by the editor and must be considered for evaluation.

All chosen reviewer must notify as soon as possible to the editor if he/she is qualified for reviewing the research of a manuscript or if he/she is not in the possibility to do it. In this case he/she could suggest another colleague to participate in this process.

Any received manuscript for revision must be treated as a confidential document. It must not be shown or discussed by other experts except with the authorization of the editor.

The reviewers must act in an objective fashion. All personal critics to the author are inappropriate. The reviewers must express their points of view with clarity and with valid arguments.

All privileged information or ideas obtained by the peer revision must be confidential and must not be used to obtain personal advantages. Reviewers must not evaluate manuscripts in which there are conflicts of interests.

The editor will be in constant communication with the reviewers during the process of ruling articles.

Indexes belonging the review

Revista Mexicana de Opinión Pública is indexed in the Scientific and Arbitrated Reviews Catalogue 2010, and the web address www.catalogoderevistas.una.mx has also been included in the Regional System of Information Online for Scientific Reviews of Latin America, the Caribe, Spain and Portugal (Latindex) whose address for the print version is http://www.latindex.org./buscador/ficRev.html?opcion=1&folio=18597 and whose address for the online version is http://www.latindex.org./buscador/ficRev.html?opcion=1&folio=23441 . The RMOP is also indexed in CLASE (Citas Latinoamericanas en Ciencias Sociales y Humanidades).

The RMOP has been included at SciELO-México since January, 2017. You can find it in this link:  http://www.scielo.org.mx/scielo.php?script=sci_serial&pid=2448-4911&lng=es&nrm=iso. It is also registered in the SciELO Citation Index and included in the database of the Classification System of Mexican Journals of Science and Technology as a journal of international competence since September 2018, at the address http://www.revistascytconacyt.mx/ search / res / Revista% 20mexicana% 20de% 20opini% C3% B3n.

The RMOP has been included, since 2019,  at Redalyc  (Red de Revistas Científicas de América Latina y el Caribe, España y Portugal. You can find it in this site:  https://www.redalyc.org/revista.oa?id=4874&tipo=coleccion.

Journal History

The Revista Mexicana de Opinión Pública (RMOP) emerged in 2005 from an initiative of Dr. Fernando Castañeda, coordinator in those years of the Public Opinion Study Center at the Political and Social Sciences Faculty and of professor Ricardo de la Peña, president of the Researchers Council of Public Opinion; the first number was published in April 2006. Among the authors that have written in the RMOP stand out some of the main pollsters of our country: Alejandro Moreno, Ricardo de la Peña, Daniel Lund, and Edmundo Berumen as well as academics which the study of public opinion appears in their work like Fernando Castaños, Rodrigo Jokisch and Fernando Castañeda. With time, others have joined to the group of collaborators of the RMOP like researchers and specialists of other educative institutions of the country and abroad, as well as other professionals dedicated to public opinion.