Reviewer guidelines
In this section, reviewers will find essential guidelines and instructions to assist them in evaluating manuscripts. These guidelines provide the key criteria and standards to follow when conducting a thorough review, ensuring a fair and consistent assessment of submitted works and thereby contributing to the quality and credibility of the peer review process.
Review instructions via OJS
Ethical policy
Propuestas Educativas ensures that the editorial team and the reviewers, as well as the authors, adhere to the required ethical guidelines throughout the publication process. To achieve this, it relies on the following international standards: the Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors and the International Standards for Editors and Authors established by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).
Reviewer commitments
- Participation in editorial decision-making: Peer review plays a crucial role in assisting editors in making decisions regarding submitted articles. It also provides authors with the opportunity to enhance the quality of their work before potential publication. Reviewers commit to conducting a critical, honest, and constructive evaluation, free from favoritism, based on their expertise and competence regarding both scientific merit and writing quality.
- Adherence to review deadlines: If a reviewer feels he does not have the necessary expertise to evaluate the topic or cannot meet the established review period, he must immediately notify the editors. Reviewers commit to completing their reviews as promptly as possible, ensuring adherence to submission deadlines. Propuestas Educativas applies strict restrictions regarding the retention of pending manuscripts, considering the authors and their work.
- Confidentiality: Each manuscript assigned to reviewers must be handled with complete confidentiality. Consequently, reviewers must not share the content with unauthorized individuals without the explicit permission of the editors.
- Impartiality and objectivity: Reviewers must evaluate manuscripts impartially and objectively, based on scientific and academic merit. They should not allow personal favoritisms or preconceived notions to influence their review.
- Recognition of missing references: Reviewers commit to accurately identifying relevant bibliographical citations that the author may have omitted. Furthermore, they must notify the editors if they find similarities or overlaps between the manuscript under review and other previously published works.
- Anonymity: To ensure impartiality, objectivity, and transparency in the review process, the anonymity of authors is preserved prior to their submission for peer review. If, at any point, the identity of the authors, their institutional affiliations, or any other information that could reveal their identity are known, the reviewer is obligated to immediately inform the editors.
- Plagiarism: If reviewers have concerns about the potential substantial reproduction of an article in relation to previously published works, they must inform the editors and provide a detailed reference to the earlier work whenever possible. The journal employs plagiarism and self-plagiarism detection systems, such as Turnitin, as a mandatory measure for both reviewers and editors.
- Fraud: If any uncertainty arises, whether significant or minor, regarding the authenticity or accuracy of the results presented in an article, it is crucial to report this to the editors.