Peer Review Process

The Revista Scientific will receive articles that correspond to theoretical or empirical works in the field of teacher training. Types of work include: scientific research articles and theoretical-reflective articles.

The journal submits all articles to a rigorous process that considers the following phases:

- Reception of the manuscript.

- Initial review.

- Blind evaluation of external peers.

- Second version of the manuscript.

- Second round of review.

- Final opinion.

- Publication.

 

Reception of the manuscript: Once the manuscript sent to the Revista Scientific has been received, an email is sent to the author (s) through the magazine platform informing that the review process will begin.

Initial review: The editing team makes an initial review of the manuscript, ensuring its thematic relevance and compliance with the formal criteria established by the journal. If the editing team determines that the manuscript meets the minimum criteria to continue its review, the author is requested to send a letter of originality and assignment of rights to the Revista Scientific, stating that the article has not been published or sent simultaneously to another journal. Next, two blind evaluators are assigned to begin the evaluation process. If the article does not meet the criteria of thematic relevance, novelty and editorial standards, the article is rejected.

Next, the initial review cycle for articles is presented:

1). From scientific research

2). Theoretical-reflexive

Blind evaluation of external peers: When the editing team decides that the article can be sent for external evaluation, two blind evaluators are assigned, who, through the platform of the Journal, complete the respective evaluation guide, either for an article theoretical or research.

The evaluation concludes with an opinion that indicates whether a manuscript is: Accepted, Accepted with minor modifications, Accepted with major modifications, or Rejected. In the evaluation format, the pairs are requested: a). indicate the compliance or not of criteria of form and content; b). Make a general assessment of the article including suggestions and / or contributions.

In case of discrepancies between the opinions of the evaluators, the manuscript is sent to a third evaluator and with this third opinion, the editor committee makes the decision to reject or send the article for modification.

The evaluators correspond to academic experts in the field, external to the editorial committee and, preferably, from countries of geographic location different from the authors of the article. 

Second version of the manuscript: Based on the observations and contributions of peer reviewers, the editor prepares a document that collects the suggestions and removes all information that allows them to be identified. This document is sent to the authors, who decide: if they send a new version of their manuscript, attending to the observations of the evaluators, or if they abandon the process. In case the authors decide to send the new version to continue the evaluation process, the editing team assigns a date of submission according to the magnitude of the observations and modifications that the author must make (date fluctuates between 2 to 3 weeks). If the authors decide not to continue in the process, the manuscript is removed from the database of the journal and the evaluators are informed that there will be no new versions for its evaluation.

In case the article is rejected by the evaluators, the author is informed through a letter in which the suggestions made by the evaluators are sent.

Second round of review: The editor receives a new version of the article and sends it to the evaluators of the first version anonymously, in order to check whether the adjustments suggested by them were considered by the author. For this, the first version, its first evaluation and the new version of the article are sent, based on this, each evaluator assesses the new manuscript and indicates to the editor if it is necessary to make new modifications or if it considers that the article can be published.

Final opinion: once the editor receives the new evaluations from the peer reviewers, together with the editorial team, the overall evaluation of the manuscript is analyzed and the approval or rejection for publication is proceeded.

When the evaluators consider that it is still necessary to make adjustments to the manuscript, the editor prepares a new document with the evaluations, taking care of the anonymity of the experts, and sends the authors and repeats the previous process until the evaluators consider that the manuscript can be be published In all instances the anonymity of both the authors and the evaluators is maintained. In this way the final version is prepared.

Publication: Once the article is finally accepted, authors are sent a letter of acceptance of their article with the date it will be published..

*The time that elapses between the reception of the article and the first response of the arbitrators, is from one (1) month to two (2) months; and the time between reception and the estimated time for publication, is three (3) months to six (6) months.

The fascicles of the Revista Scientific, are published periodically (quarterly) on 05 (working) of the month of february, may, august and november of each year.