About the Journal

Focus and Scope

Hipertext.net is an open access, peer-reviewed research journal created and published by the Department of Communication at the Pompeu Fabra University in Barcelona.

Hipertext.net expressly encourages authors to submit articles presenting the results of competitive research projects that are likely to have an international impact. The journal serves as an open forum for both national and international researchers and research groups who specifically wish to develop and publish state-of-the-art reviews, case studies, conceptual models, and research findings in general related to Digital Documentation and Interactive Communication.

Hipertext.net is aimed at an international readership of academics and professionals with an interest in topics related to Digital Documentation and Interactive Communication, with a particular focus on their impact in the countries of IberoAmerica.

Hipertext.net publishes issues based either on open calls for papers, often in close collaboration with parallel international conferences in the field, or thematic issues, co-ordinated by guest editors of considerable renown in the specific topic. This two-pronged approach means it is able to disseminate the work of authors with extensive professional experience along with that of emerging authors working in emerging fields.

Hipertext.net is published in open access twice a year, in May and November. In seeking to promote a greater global exchange of knowledge and facilitate its transfer, access to articles is immediate upon publication and free of charge.

All articles submitted to the journal are subjected to peer review. This process of dialogue between authors, journal editors and independent expert reviewers guarantees scientific excellence and the dissemination of knowledge in the field.

Section Policies

Tribune

This section welcomes opinion-led articles from experts in their specific field of research or, in the case of thematic issues, on the specific topic addressed in that issue.

Sin marcar Open submissions

 MarcadoIndexed

 Sin marcar Peer Reviewed

Articles

Contributions should be between 4,000 and 9,000 words in length, including references, and should, ideally, comprise the following sections: an introduction, a theoretical framework, methodology, results, discussion and references.

 Marcado Open submissions

 Marcado Indexed

 Marcado Peer Reviewed

Reports

Reports of digital product analyses and experiences or case study reports. Contributions should be between 4,000 and 9,000 words in length, including references, and should, ideally, comprise the following sections: an introduction, a theoretical framework, outline of the product analysis/ case study and references.

Marcado Open submissions

 Marcado Indexed

Marcado Peer Reviewed

Letters

Brief communications which, ideally, should comprise the following sections: an introduction, a case report, discussion and references. Letters should be between 1,500 and 3,000 words in length.

Marcado Open submissions

Marcado Indexed

Marcado Peer Reviewed

Commentaries

Contributions with a recommended length of between 3,000 and 4,000 words. Short essays, opinion pieces, and general commentaries on current issues, controversies, and emerging topics relevant to the field.

Sin marcar Open submissions

Marcado Indexed

Sin marcar Peer Reviewed

Interviews

Interviews with professionals or academics working in the fields of Documentation Science, Social Communication or Interactive Communication.

Sin marcar Open submissions

Marcado Indexed

 Sin marcar Peer Reviewed

Doctoral thesis

Articles summarising the findings of recently defended PhD theses.

 Marcado Open submissions

 Marcado Indexed

 Sin marcar Peer Reviewed

 

RESEARCH SCOPE: Hipertext.net provides a forum for the dissemination of research in the Sciences of Documentation, Social Communication and Interactive Communication, and, in particular, multidisciplinary studies that combine or incorporate the interests of one or more of these fields.

MANUSCRIPT TYPE: Hipertext.net encourages authors to submit state-of-the-art reviews, conceptual models and methodological discussions, and, in particular, papers presenting the results of competitive research projects.

 

Peer Review Process

Hipertext.net appoints an Editorial Team and an International Scientific Committee to draw up the general editorial line for each issue. Based on these objectives, the Editorial Team issues a call for original papers in which experts in the field are invited to submit their work. Similarly, any researcher in the field is free to submit a proposal for consideration if they believe their work fulfils the conditions laid down for that particular issue. Note that Hipertext.net prioritises publication of articles presenting the results of competitive research projects.

On receipt of the manuscript, the journal’s Editorial Team undertakes to review it within a fortnight and if it considers it to be of interest and to meet the acceptance criteria laid down in its Guidelines, the Team forwards it two reviewers for evaluation. For this purpose, the reviewers are provided with a standardized assessment form. If the opinions of the two reviewers differ widely, a third reviewer might be contacted. Based on the reviewers’ reports, the Editor and or the Editorial Team decide whether to accept the text for publication or to reject it.

 

Stages

The peer review process, including any revisions requested from the authors, takes approximately three months. However, the availability of reviewers and the possible need for a third review can lead to delays. The process comprises the following stages:

  • Stage 1: Submission of the manuscript via the journal’s own platform (see Submissions for specific steps).
  • Stage 2: Initial assessment by the journal’s Editorial Team. If the paper is considered appropriate and it includes the required stylizations, it is sent to a minimum of two external reviewers. The submitting author is notified at this point that their paper has been sent out for review or, alternatively, that it has been rejected.
  • Stage 3: Assessment of the manuscript by two external reviewers in a period of between approximately one to two months.
  • Stage 4: Submission of assessment reports by the external reviewers to the journal’s Editorial Team. If the opinions of the two reviewers differ widely, a third or even fourth review might be requested.
  • Stage 5: Once all the reports have been received, the Editorial Team makes its overall decision on the manuscript. The submitting author is thus informed that their paper is either suitable for publication, requires revision – flagged as either major or minor – or has been rejected. In all instances, the author(s) receive constructive comments from the reviewers to help them improve the article.

 

Open Access Policy

Hipertext.net makes all our publications immediately available online, ensuring authors can publish their articles in open access in institutional repositories and in social and academic networks. Hipertext.net is fully committed to open science as a means of safeguarding knowledge transfer.

Authors are encouraged to disseminate their work digitally both before and during the submission process, as this can prompt productive exchanges of ideas and result in more immediate, and ultimately greater, citation of published articles (see “The Effect of Open Access”).

Authors can have their work deposited in open-access repositories either as preprints (non-peer reviewed) or as postprints (peer-reviewed and accepted for publication).

Hipertext.net does not charge any article submission or article processing fees.

 

Author rights

On submission of an article to Hipertext.net, authors cede to the editor non-exclusive rights to reproduce, publish, distribute, transform, make available or otherwise communicate to the public their work in electronic format and for the article to be consulted on the journal’s website and via the cooperative repository of Revistes Catalanes amb Accés Obert (RACO).

The cessation of these rights is indefinite and universal and authors grant authorization for their article to be published under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International Licence (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0). Subsequent use of any articles requires recognition of authorship and of their prior publication in Hipertext.net.

 

Recommendations for use of inclusive and non-sexist language

Hipertext.net supports the use of inclusive language as well as the elimination of all sexist forms, promoting writing that is free of any prejudices associated with race, physical ability, gender, sexual orientation, beliefs, ideologies and socio-economic status. Authors are urged to review their texts so as to avoid perpetuating stereotypes and any kind of discrimination or stigmatization of individuals, groups or collectives.

For more information and examples, authors are encouraged to consult the following guidelines:

[English] Guidelines for Non-Sexist Use of Language (APA)

[Spanish] Guía para un uso no sexista de la lengua (UAM-CSIC)

[Catalan] El llenguatge inclusiu: compatibilitat dels recursos estilístics dels usos no sexistes amb la normativa lingüística (IEC)

 

Journal indexing

Hipertext.net is indexed in:

 

Databases for quality evaluation or impact studies of scientific journals

 

Specialized databases


Directories of academic journals

 

Repositories, metadata harvesters and portals of open access journals

 

Table of contents databases

 

Library catalogues

  • CCUC. Catàleg Col·lectiu de les Universitats Catalanes. Consorci de Biblioteques Universitàries de Catalunya
    http://ccuc.cbuc.cat/

 

Publication ethics and best practices guidelines

In adherence with international standards for scientific journals, Hipertext.net complies with the Core Practices of the Committee of Publication Ethics (COPE) (http://publicationethics.org/), applicable to all involved in publishing scholarly literature: editors and their journals, reviewers and authors.

 

1. Role and responsibilities of the Editor and the Editorial Committee

Hipertext.net’s Editorial Committee guarantees that all manuscripts submitted to it are reviewed by experts with specialist understanding of the themes considered by the journal. The Committee provides reviewers with guidelines – including, specific instructions, a standardized assessment form, clear delivery dates and a code of ethics – to ensure the quality of the process and that all decisions regarding eventual publication are ethical. The journal’s database of reviewers is constantly updated and members of the Editorial Committee are relied upon to nominate new reviewers.

Hipertext.net’s Editorial Committee holds ultimate responsibility for deciding whether a submitted paper is suitable for publication, requires revision – flagged as either major or minor – or should be rejected.

Hipertext.net’s Editorial Committee undertakes to publish corrections, clarifications, retractions and apologies as required. In compliance with these core practices, Hipertext.net is fully accountable for its review system and has clearly defined and communicated policies on the type of peer review model used.

1.1. Protecting confidentiality

Hipertext.net undertakes not to share any information or details concerning manuscripts submitted for publication with anyone who is not a member of the Editorial Committee, and ensures that all discussions conducted in confidence between an author, editor, and peer reviewer remain in confidence. The journal seeks to uphold intellectual honesty and integrity both during the review process and once the article has been published.

The journal employs a single-blind peer review model that ensures the anonymity of the reviewers. The use of this model means reviewers are better able to check for duplicate or redundant publications and self-plagiarism by authors; at the same time, it simplifies the process of manuscript submission for the latter.

With the exception of the authors’ institutional affiliation, email address, ORCiD iD, brief curriculum vitae and other information that they might decide to include in the published manuscript, their personal information is treated as confidential.

1.2. Respecting the time line

The Editor undertakes to keep the author(s) of a submission up to date about the time line for the review process, informing them from the outset about the expected schedule for the review and publication of their paper. Should any stage in this process be delayed, the authors will be informed of the motive and they will be given the option to withdraw their paper or to continue with the review process.

2. Responsibilities of the authors

By submitting a manuscript to Hipertext.net, authors acknowledge that all the work described therein is original and that the paper does not contain fragments of works by other authors or fragments of their own previously published work without explicit citation (in accordance with the APA 7th Edition). Authors also guarantee that the work described has not been published previously and that it is not under consideration for publication elsewhere.

Authors must ensure that they have included the names of all those who have made a significant scientific contribution to the conceptualization and design of the work, the analysis and interpretation of results and the drafting of the article. When submitting an article, the authors must list the authors in order according to the individual contribution of each member of the authorship team. This order should be respected by the journal.

All authors are responsible for what is written in their submission and give guarantees that the research reported in their manuscript has been carried out in an ethical and responsible fashion.

In the case of a dispute regarding authorship of a paper, the manuscript Editor, with the support of the Editorial Committee, can withdraw a text from the review process, refuse to accept a submission or retract a published article until the situation has been resolved.

2.1 Acknowledgment of sources

Authors must acknowledge and clearly identify all bibliographic sources that have facilitated writing of their paper. To do this end, they should employ the citation system proposed by Hipertext.net (APA 7th Ed.).

2.2. Conflicts of interests

Authors must disclose any conflict of interest that might affect the assessment of their work or raise questions about the data or results presented in their research. Similarly, all sources of funding for the article and/or research must be acknowledged.

2.3. Ethical misconduct

Instances of ethical misconduct may be identified by the editor, reviewers or readers, in which case all accusations are carefully addressed provided there is sufficient evidence of misconduct. Typical cases of unethical authorship include plagiarism, self-plagiarism, duplicate or redundant publications and the falsification of data and research results. If the journal suspects an ethical problem with a submitted text, it undertakes to initiate action in adherence with the steps specified for this purpose in the flowcharts provided by COPE. These can be consulted at https://publicationethics.org/guidance/Flowcharts

Submitted texts will be reviewed by a plagiarism detection program such as Turnitin.

2.4. Research Funding and acknowledgements

Hipertext.net requires authors to disclose all sources of funding in the manuscript, either in the Funding or Acknowledgments section. When the research is supported by entities, programs, agencies, or projects, their full names and any associated identifiers or codes that facilitate source verification must be clearly stated. In cases where no specific funding was received, this should be explicitly noted. Additionally, the role of the funding body in the research process—beyond the provision of financial support—must be clearly described.

All additional sources of funding, whether direct or indirect, must be clearly disclosed in the Funding or Acknowledgments section of the manuscrit.

2.5. Use of Artificial Intelligence (IA)

Generative AI and AI-assisted technologies should be used solely as support tools to enhance the readability and language quality of the manuscript, and must always be applied under the supervision and control of the authors. As a general rule, the inclusion of AI-generated content—whether textual, visual, or of any other nature—is not recommended. However, the use of AI may be permitted when its contribution responds to a justified need arising from the methodological design of the research or another substantial reason. In such cases, authors must:

  • Explicitly declare its use and provide a justification based on the research methodology or another significant rationale. Convenience or time-saving alone is not considered a valid justification.
  • Clearly delineate the AI-generated content so that readers can unambiguously identify its scope, and properly attribute it by specifying the model used, prompts or instructions given, and any other relevant information that ensures traceability.
  • Assume full responsibility for the validity and originality of the AI-generated content, as well as for respecting the authorship of the sources used and preventing plagiarism. This responsibility must be reflected in the manuscript (in the introduction, methodology, or a dedicated section, as appropriate).

Final acceptance of such manuscripts will be at the discretion of the editorial team, based on the extent to which the above criteria are met.

3. Peer Review Process

Reviewers undertake to carry out an earnest, critical, constructive and impartial assessment of the submitted work and to complete their review within the deadlines specified for that purpose by the journal.

Reviewers should only agree to review a manuscript if they consider themselves fully competent in the subject matter and if there is no conflict of interest with an assigned submission, its authors, or funding agencies.

Manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential and reviewers must respect the confidentiality of the process at all times. Reviewers undertake not to consult the opinion of anyone else during the review process and not to contact the authors directly.

Reviewers undertake to submit a complete and detailed report, with appropriate references, in accordance with the time line established by the journal and any public standards applicable to the peer review process, especially if recommending the paper be rejected. Reviewers should also raise any issues of author misconduct they might detect during the review process.

Based on the reviewers’ reports, the Editor of the journal proceeds to inform the author(s) of the outcome of the review process (that is, accepted for publication without changes, accepted for publication following some revision – flagged as either major or minor – or unsuitable for publication) and explains how and why the particular decision has been reached.

If a manuscript has been accepted for publication following revision, the author(s) must resubmit a new version of the article in which they address the requirements and suggestions of the external reviewers. The Editorial Committee may request a document in which the authors indicate the modifications made to the manuscript. Depending on the degree of compliance with the modifications requested, the Committee will decide whether the article is suitable for publication or not. This decision is communicated to the authors by the Editor of the journal.

4. Complaints and appeals

The journal undertakes to respond to all complaints registered by authors provided they are well founded and to do so in adherence with the recommended steps specified for this purpose in the flowcharts provided by COPE.

All complaints must be addressed to the Editor and should be accompanied by the requisite arguments and evidence for the case to be given due consideration. If deemed necessary, the Editor may request the support of the Editorial Committee or an individual Committee member who is an expert on the subject matter of the article in question.

Under no circumstances shall the complaint resolution process involve revealing the reviewers’ identity.

5. Publication Fees and Diamond Open Access 

Following UNESCO recommendations, Hipertext.net participates in and promotes the Diamond Open Access to content. Therefore, authors do not need to pay an Article Processing Charge (APC), and therefore no exemptions are offered.
Readers can access all content published in the journal.

 

Technical Support

Library/CRAI - Universitat Pompeu Fabra
 

Journal's Institutional Website

Hipertext.net
Academic journal on digital documentation and interactive communication
Link

 

Sponsorship

This publication is funded by:

Department of Communication 
 https://www.upf.edu/web/comunicacio
from Pompeu Fabra University, https://www.upf.edu/