Focus and Scope

Bibliographica is a peer-reviewed academic journal, employing a double-blind arbitration system, published by the Instituto de Investigaciones Bibliográficas (IIB) of the Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México (UNAM). Issued on a biannual basis (March and September), it publishes articles and reviews on topics related to the study of manuscripts and printed books, publishing practices, and periodicals, from the earliest graphic manifestations to new digital media, in Mexico and throughout the world. Bibliographica offers a platform for research on documentary sources and an academic dialogue on their past, present, and future, which includes reflections on documentary preservation in both analog and digital platforms. Among the main research lines privileged by Bibliographica are bibliography, periodical studies, the history of the book, publishing, and periodicals, bibliology, and subjects related to the process of manuscript production (codicology, paleography, the constitution of archival collections, etc.), as well as the study of sources of written culture, including the phenomena inherent to their transmission and reception, together with issues concerning preservation across all platforms. Addressed to researchers, specialists, faculty members, and undergraduate and graduate students, Bibliographica seeks to be a space for reflection on these subjects from multi- and interdisciplinary perspectives, both nationally and internationally.

Bibliographica is sponsored by the Instituto de Investigaciones Bibliográficas, which has a long-standing tradition in advancing research on subjects related to bibliography in its broadest sense. It is financed through the annual budget of this institute of the Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México and is published in both digital and limited-print formats; it is available in open access through the editorial management platform Open Journal Systems (OJS). As of 2026, it includes contributions in Spanish, English, or French. It publishes only original research that has not been previously published nor is under review by another journal. Submissions are subject to a double-blind arbitration process, and the evaluations of the Scientific Committee are final.

Editorial Process

Preliminary Review

Bibliographica receives texts throughout the year through its platform. Submitted texts that comply with the journal's policies will be subject to an initial assessment in the first instance.

1.  Academic relevance review:

• • The editorial team may decline to consider the text if it does not align with the publication's focus and scope, in which case the author will receive a reasoned notification explaining the rejection.
  • The text may be sent back to the author with observations from the editorial team to strengthen their collaboration, which must be resubmitted within a timeframe determined according to each case.

2. Signing of originality declaration and submission of digital identification document:

• • All authors who submit a collaboration must sign the originality declaration, in which they certify that the submitted text is unpublished, original, and is not under review at another publication. They also commit to managing and providing the corresponding permissions for the publication of any graphic material included in their proposal, should it be accepted. The signature must be accompanied by a digital copy of a valid official identification.

3. Originality review in accordance with plagiarism detection policy:

• • The text will be subjected to similarity detection using iThenticate software, through Crossref's Similarity Check service.
  • If relevant matches are identified, the result will be qualitatively assessed by the editorial team and may result in sending observations and requesting changes or clarification from the author through technical review.
  • If the evaluation determines that the text has engaged in plagiarism practices, it will be definitively rejected.

4. Technical review in accordance with editorial policies:

• • The text will be evaluated by the editorial team to verify compliance with the requirements for original submissions and according to the brief guide for reference presentation.
  • If adjustments are required, the text will be returned to the author so that, within no more than one week, they return it addressing the requested changes.

Subsequently, once compliance with all observations (if any) has been verified, the text may proceed to the peer review process, under the double-blind review modality, which will be carried out through the journal's platform.

Peer review process

1. Selection of peer reviewers by the editorial team.

• • At least three individuals who, due to their trajectory and knowledge, are considered suitable to review the topic addressed in the text will be selected.

2. Sending review request.

• • An invitation to collaborate in the evaluation process is sent, which includes the title and abstract of the text. If the proposed person accepts, they will be able to access the complete work (with appropriate omissions for double-blind review) and the review format through the journal's system.
  • By accepting the request, the reviewer commits to comply with the journal's policies that guarantee confidentiality, impartiality of the evaluation process, and academic integrity, as well as to declare that they have no conflict of interest in reviewing the text.
  • If they do not accept the request, the invitation is sent to the next option on the list or a new one is proposed.

3. Reception and validation of reviews in accordance with peer review process and code of ethics.

• • Once the two evaluations have been completed and received, the editorial team records the decisions and, if any exist, reviews the observations made to convey them to the author in a request for adjustments.
  • In case of controversy in the result of the two reviews, the procedure outlined in the review process scenarios in Bibliographica (detailed below) will be followed.
  • If the result of the third review suggests that the controversy persists, the editorial team, possibly with support from the Editorial Board, will make a final decision based on a comprehensive assessment of the manuscript and the reviews received.

4. Sending certificates and acknowledgments to peer reviewers.

5. Communication of peer review to the author:

• • The response is sent to the author and, when applicable, is accompanied by a request for adjustments that will include the reviewers' observations; the editorial team may add clarifications they consider pertinent. The results can be as follows:

• • • Approved without changes
    • Subject to changes at author's discretion
    • Conditional on major changes
    • Rejected

The results of the peer review process are final in all cases and will be communicated to the author within four months, if no delays arise in the procedure due to causes beyond the journal's control.

Post-review process

1. Request for adjustments:

• • When the evaluation result is favorable, the author must deliver the corrected version of their text, depending on the case, within no more than one month and no less than one week from the date of communication of the evaluation.
  • The deadlines for resubmitting the post-review version of the text through the journal's platform, unless the editorial team indicates a specific date, will be as follows:

• • • Conditional on minor changes: 10 calendar days
    • Conditional on major changes: 30 calendar days

2. Preparation of post-review version and submission to the journal:

• • When authors send the corrected version, they must deliver the document using Word's track changes tool and highlight in yellow all modifications made, so that the editorial team can verify that the reviewers' comments have been addressed.

• • • If some minor recommendations are not addressed, the author must provide a reasoned explanation in a separate document
    • If some major modifications are not addressed, the author must provide a reasoned explanation in a letter addressed to the journal's editorial office and bearing their signature

If after the established deadlines Bibliographica does not punctually receive the corrected version of the text, a reminder will be sent to the author granting an additional period of five business days, and if no response is received to this last approach, it will be considered that the author has withdrawn their text and they will be notified that the editorial process of the manuscript is suspended.

3. Evaluation of the corrected versio

• •  Upon concluding the peer review process described above, once the final version of the manuscript has been received, it will be reviewed by the editorial team, whose final decision can be issued in the following ways:

• • • Publish
    • Return to author with request for additional corrections (the author will have a new maximum period of five business days to make them)
    • Send back to reviewers or request opinion from the Editorial Board on attention to reviews
    • Reject

4. Sending final editorial decision to the author.

Once this phase is concluded, the text is delivered to the Editorial Department for issue compilation and will be published within no more than six months.

Publication process

1. Delivery of final manuscript version to Editorial Department

• • When the final version of the collaboration is received and accepted by the journal, the author may no longer suggest any modifications. Bibliographica reserves the right to make necessary style corrections and editorial changes it deems pertinent to improve the quality of the works it publishes.

2. Signing of publication authorization

• • Publication of the author's collaboration is conditional on the prompt signing of this format.

3. Publication notification

• • The author will be notified of the publication of their collaboration in the proposed volume and issue in PDF format within the journal's platform.

Review process scenarios in Bibliographica

Publication Frequency

Bibliographica is a biannual journal (March-August; September-February).

Two issues are published each year (on March 7 and September 7).

Open Access Policy

Bibliographica conforms to the policies of open access in order to contribute to a greater network of global knowledge, and does not charge its authors for processing their contributions nor does have any other subscription charges for its readers.

This journal provides immediate and open access to its contents based on the principle that open access to research works contributes to a greater network of global knowledge, in accordance with the General Guidelines for Open Access Policy of the Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México ( act of September 10, 2015).

Ethical Code

Publishing an article in a peer-reviewed journal is essential in the development and consolidation of a respectable and coherent net of knowledge. A published article is proof of the quality of the work of its author and the reputation of the institution they belong to. Peer-review is fundamental for the debate and dissemination of scholarly knowledge. Therefore it is relevant to set the rules of the ethic behavior expected from all parties involved in the publication of a scholarly article: authors, editors, reviewers and sponsors.

Code of Ethics

I. For the editorial director as head of the journal

•  The editorial director is responsible for the academic quality of all that is published in the journal.
• The editorial director must guarantee freedom of speech and defend the autonomy of the journal against economic or corporate interests.
• The editorial director is also responsible for decisions regarding publication, in complete accordance with the results of peer-review.
• The editorial director must act under the fair play principle with all the authors, peer reviewers and before the Scientific Committee.
• The editorial director has to maintain all peer-review processes confidential, as well as all the personal information of the authors, peer reviewers and members of the Scientific Committee.
• When a conflict of interest between authors and reviews arises, the editorial director must reveal such matter in a pertinent way and act in consequence.
• The editorial director is also responsible for solving any issues that may occur related to unacceptable behavior within academic publication. 

II.  For the peer reviewers 

• Peer reviewers are responsible for contributing to the editorial decision-making and further publication of the text.
• It is expected from reviewers that they meet both time-frames and guidelines for a prompt review process.
• Peer reviewers must respect the confidentiality of the process.
• Peer reviewers are expected to be fair, honest and unbiased in their evaluation.
• Peer reviewers must acknowledge refereed sources in their evaluation.
• Peer reviewers must inform any competing or conflicting interests that may arise during the review process. 

III. For the authors 

• Authors are responsible for insuring their collaboration is an original and unpublished work, as well for contents and opinions expressed in it.
• Authors must provide access to all data sources, in any given time of the editorial process, and they must be clearly identified and located.
• Authors must avoid plagiarism; cite their sources with accuracy, since this constitutes the critical founding of their work.
• Authors must avoid multiple-publishing, being redundant or recurrent with the product of their research.

IV. Unacceptable behavior 

• Any form of plagiarism.
• Multiple publication of the same text, redundant or recurrent publication.
• Data misinformation or alteration. 

V. Measures to be taken in the event of unacceptable behavior 

To clear an author of any suspicions regarding unacceptable behavior, such as plagiarism, multiple, redundant and recurrent publication, as well as data misinformation or alteration, all resources available will be enforced, including the systematic consultation of indexes and databases, the use of anti-plagiarism software and, given the case, direct communication with editors and other scholarly publications.

If unacceptable behavior is identified during the process of submission, revision, acceptance and edition of the materials sent to Bibliographica, the editors will follow the protocol established by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

If unacceptable behavior is proven, the submitted research will be retreated and all the parties involved or affected by this situation will be notified. 

If the author of a work published in Bibliographica incurs in unacceptable behavior, a notice of retread will be set instead of the original text in the electronic version, and a letter will be published in the next issue of the printed version, so that readers and general public be informed of such misconduct. 

VI. Actions to avoid unacceptable behavior 

• All texts sent to Bibliographica are analyzed and revised for similarity with digital methods. The anti-plagiarism software is provided by Turnitin iThenticate.
• Bibliographica follows the ethical and good practice academic code established by Conacyt (Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnología/National Council for Science and Technology) and COPE.

Fees

Bibliographica does not charge the authors any fee for sending and processing articles for publication.

Digital Preservation Policy

Bibliographica establishes five levels of protection and preservation for its electronic format:

 1. Regarding metadata, it uses the Dublin Core standard for data structure and OAI-PMH for metadata exchange with other repositories. This also allows Bibliographica to be compatible with the institutional repository of the Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México in order to be harvested as a journal and therefore abide by the regulation established within the University. (https://repositorio.unam.mx/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/Políticas-del-RI-UNAM-20190819.pdf)

 2. A backup of Bibliographica is regularly made and stored in a storage space separate from the journal’s server.

 3. Bibliographica is on a high availability platform, which allows the journal to be accessed for query most of the time.

 4. Bibliographica has specific software versions essential for its performance; therefore, software updates and the integration with the rest of its tools and functionality are verified. If applicable, the software is updated or migrated to another version.

 Bibliographica is migrated to a more recent software version when it requires new and necessary functionality not provided by the current one or when the journal’s software support updates are no longer available from the developer.

 5. Because of its legal status, Bibliographica complies with the Legal Deposit Law as established in the Diario Oficial de la Federación, where it states:

 Decree by which editors and documental and bibliographic material providers are obliged to turn one copy of their work to the Biblioteca Nacional and the Biblioteca del Congreso de la Unión. In accordance with the ARTICLE THIRD SECTION B, where it establishes the requirement to provide “one copy of microfilms, slides, discs, diskettes, audio and video cassettes and other audiovisual and electronic materials which contain information as per the characteristics noted in the section above” (DOF, 1991). (https://dof.gob.mx/nota_detalle.php?codigo=4733347&fecha=23/07/1991)

Sponsors

• Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México

Journal History

This new academic journal has great bibliographic and library study heritage, since the creation of the Instituto Bibliográfico Mexicano in 1899, to the current Instituto de Investigaciones Bibliográficas (IIB) of the Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México (UNAM). With the release of Bibliographica, the IIB –which has sustained an aged tradition of studies devoted to bibliography, periodicals and newspapers– fulfills its mission in projecting the research of bibliography, periodicals and topics related to its research areas in a digital platform, with interests that encompass them in its chronological and geographical diversity, and in its various formats.