Peer-review process.
Anonymous Peer Review Process (Double-Blind)
For article review, an anonymous double-blind peer review will be conducted; where reviewers do not know the identity of the article authors, and authors do not know the identity of the reviewers, thus ensuring transparency and impartiality in the process.
Editorial Process
All publication proposals must be submitted exclusively through the Open Journal System (OJS), to ensure electronic and auditable registration of all interactions between the journal and authors.
The editorial process begins with the receipt of the article through the OJS system. First, an editorial audit is conducted to verify that the topic is of interest to the journal according to its scope and objective, and that it complies with the guidelines for authors.
If the topic is of interest but the manuscript does not comply with all author guidelines, it will be returned with observations for correction. The corrected article must be resubmitted through the OJS system.
Once the editorial audit is approved, the article is sent to external reviewers under the double-blind review system. It is projected that from this stage until the final verdict, a maximum of 10 weeks will elapse, except for external conditions that affect this period, which will be promptly communicated to the authors.
Evaluation Instruments
Specific evaluation instruments will be used according to the article typology:
For research articles: Aspects such as relevance and originality, title/abstract/keywords, introduction, theoretical framework, methodology, results, discussion/conclusions, and formal aspects will be evaluated.
For review articles: The relevance of the reviewed topic, search methodology, inclusion/exclusion criteria, development and analysis, among other specific aspects will be evaluated.
For reflection articles: The originality of the perspective, the soundness of the theoretical foundations, and the coherence in the argumentative structure will be especially valued.
Evaluation Criteria
Reviewers will rate each criterion on a scale of 1 to 4 points:
Poor (1): The criterion is not met or has serious deficiencies. Fair (2): The criterion is partially met, with significant deficiencies. Good (3): The criterion is adequately met, with minor aspects to improve. Excellent (4): The criterion is met in an outstanding manner.
The central evaluation criteria include:
Relevance and originality: Novelty of the research, contribution to existing knowledge, and relevance to the journal's audience.
Formal aspects: Manuscript structure, writing quality, compliance with APA 7th edition standards, and quality of bibliographic references.
Methodological rigor: Clarity in design, adequacy of methods to objectives, validity of instruments, and ethical considerations.
Quality of results and discussion: Clear presentation of findings, appropriate analysis, adequate interpretation, and contrast with existing literature.
Conclusions: Foundation in results, identification of limitations, and theoretical/practical implications.
Editorial Decision
Based on the total score obtained in the evaluation instruments, the editorial committee will make one of the following decisions:
Accepted:
- Research articles: 101 to 144 points
- Review articles: 93 to 132 points
- Reflection articles: 87 to 124 points
Accepted with modifications:
- Research articles: 61 to 100 points
- Review articles: 56 to 92 points
- Reflection articles: 52 to 86 points
Rejected:
- Research articles: 1 to 60 points
- Review articles: 1 to 55 points
- Reflection articles: 1 to 51 points
Post-Evaluation Process
Accepted articles: Will go directly to grammatical review, layout, and publication in the next available issue.
Articles accepted with modifications: Authors will be notified of the necessary modifications, who will have a maximum of 15 consecutive days to make them and resubmit the article. Failure to comply with this deadline will be interpreted as a waiver of publication.
Rejected articles: Authors will be notified of the reason for rejection according to the reviewers' verdict. The arbitration decision is final.
Final Review and Publication
After acceptance, the editorial team will review the manuscript again to detect possible grammatical or writing errors.
The final grammatical review will be the responsibility of the author or authors, who must complete it within a maximum of 8 consecutive days. Failure to comply with this deadline will be interpreted as a waiver of publication.
Diversity in Evaluation
To promote greater reliability, reviewers will preferably be from different countries and institutions, thus fostering diversity of opinion in the evaluation process.
Special Situations
Unforeseen situations not contemplated in the evaluation process will be submitted for consideration by the journal's editorial and scientific committee, using the guidelines established by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) as a reference.
