Criteria for opinion process

  1. Proposed manuscripts that conform to the editorial line of the journal and meet the minimum essential conditions of a well-supported academic work and with a coherent writing, will be sent for its opinion and / or arbitration.
  2. Manuscripts will be refereed by at least two reviewers external to the journal and experts in the subject of interest, these will be researchers and academics of recognized prestige whose lines of work coincide with the subject addressed in each text, who will determine if the material complies with the quality and objectives of the journal.
  3. Manuscripts are subjected to a double-blind evaluation process, in which the authors do not know the evaluators and vice versa. The result of the academic opinion process is final.
  4. The evaluation criteria suggested to the reviewers will be the following:
  • Attention to its content.Consider the originality, rigor, interest, and timeliness of the approaches, as well as their relevance to the field of education.
  • Attention to the general structure of the work.That the exposition is made with a coherent logic and that it achieves its analytical cohesion.
  • Attention to writing.Exhibition quality.
  1. The final opinion will be made known to the authors by means of an “Evaluation Letter” or “Decision Letter” and may be one of the following:

 

- Accept submission: the text will automatically go to the editing stage, provided that the second opinion is also publishable without objection. If both reviewers make that decision, the editor-in-chief is responsible for reviewing it at their discretion and if they agree with the reviewers' decision, they make the decision to publish it as is or if any change in the work has to be addressed (regularly these changes are in format).

 

- Publishable with modifications: manuscripts that are conditioned to make minor or major changes must comply with the recommendations of the reviewers before being considered for publication. In this case, the author will be informed if the work needs modifications, which will be indicated exactly, and it will be up to the author if it incorporates them or not. The author will have a period of 30 days, counted from the date of return, to present the corrected version of his text together with a reply where he responds to each comment of the reviewer. Once these changes have been made, the text will be reviewed again by the Editor-in-Chief and will proceed to be published.

 

- Revaluable: In this case, the author will be indicated what deep modifications should be made to the work. The author will have a reasonable period of time to present the corrected version of his text, which will be reviewed again by the same referees and by the Editor-in-Chief, this to verify that the requested changes and to what extent the reviewers' recommendations have been made satisfactorily (known in the system as Round 2 or second round). This new version must also be sent together with a reply letter, where the authors compulsorily reply to the reviewers for the changes made regarding their review. The referees who evaluated in the first round are the ones who will be in charge of reviewing the new version again, this to see if their proposals were addressed, once the reviewers evaluate it again and make the decision to either accept it, publish it after making some more changes, or reject it, the Editor-in-chief of the journal is the one who makes the final decision regarding the decision of the reviewers and their own criteria, in this case going to the point of publishable with modifications, accepting or rejecting it.

 

- Not publishable: Here the judge will clearly state the reasons why he considers that the text cannot be published in the RA. The decision is made based on what the reviewers have concluded, the Editor-in-Chief of the RA reviews their comments and if he agrees with the rejection of the manuscript, he is the one who makes the decision not to publish it.

 

- Conflicting opinions: In the event that the opinions are opposite (one reviewer asks for it to be published and the other does not), a third opinion will be requested from another referee from the same area, this is so that the Editor-in-Chief can take an appropriate decision, based on the results of similar evaluations, either approved (publishable with modifications or reassessed) or rejected, and the third arbitration will be discarded.

 

  1. The resolution of the arbitrators is final.
  2. In the event that the judgment process cannot be initiated due to not having the necessary number of arbitrators under the conditions established by the regulations, the author or authors will be notified for their knowledge and decision on withdrawing or keeping the arbitrators awaiting manuscript.