Review and Arbitration Process

Authors who submit their writings for possible publication in the Diá-logos Journal must do so in their final version. Once received, the editor will check that all the requested requirements are met and an opinion will be provided in this first stage of review that will last one month. To do so, the following steps will be taken:

  1. The article will be reviewed through the StrikePlagiarism tool to detect similarity of information. Any work that exceeds 15% similarity with previously published works will be rejected.
  2. The submitted text will be reviewed to ensure it is related to the focus and scope of the journal.
  3. The writing of the article will be evaluated: it must present textual coherence, cohesion and adequacy, as well as congruence between the paragraphs of the manuscript.
  4. The sources cited will be reviewed to ensure that they are pertinent and up-to-date. In addition, it must be submitted under the APA Standards (See document on APA Standards).

Once the editor has verified that these steps have been met, the author will be notified that the external double-blind peer review will begin within a maximum period of 60 days.

The decisions of the members of the editorial committee, made up of national and international evaluators, to accept or reject an article for publication are based solely on the relevance of the work, its originality and clarity in writing, as well as on the relevance of the study in relation to the editorial line.

It is guaranteed that the material submitted for publication will be considered as reserved and confidential material while it is being evaluated and, in the event of rejection, no national or international evaluator member may make the original public.

The identity of the evaluators is protected at all times, guaranteeing their anonymity.

Each article will be subject to external double-blind peer review, external to the publishing institution, where the identity of both the authors and the evaluators will remain anonymous. If discrepancies are found in the assessment issued by each evaluator, the article will be submitted to the evaluation of a third reviewer. The evaluation will be carried out through the evaluation rubric provided by the journal (you can access the rubric by clicking here).

  1. The articles will be sent to academic experts in the same disciplinary and thematic area. Criteria for selecting the evaluators related to scientific competencies and experience in the field of education, pedagogy, curriculum and educational innovation will be applied.
  2. The evaluators must review and analyze the scientific, theoretical and methodological relevance of the assigned article. In addition, they must review the congruence with respect to the field of study, the coherence between the academic contribution and the relevance of the findings described, as well as the timeliness and timeliness of the sources cited within the text.
  3. Once the article has been received, the evaluators will have up to one month to carry out the review and deliver their opinion.
  4. The article will be sent to two evaluators assigned to a different educational institution than the one to which the authors belong.
  5. The evaluators will issue an opinion based on the following possibilities:
    Accepted without revisions, accepted with minor revisions, accepted with major revisions, or rejected.
    • Accepted without revisions: this is the evaluation that has no suggestions, meaning that the article is accepted for publication.
    • Accepted with minor revisions: the author will receive the article with minor observations and corrections that do not entail substantial modifications to the text; for example, errors in writing, spelling, moderate discrepancies, subtle adjustments, among others.
    • Accepted with major revisions: the author will receive the article with significant observations and corrections that require substantial changes in the wording; for example, redoing tables and figures, rewriting a discussion, addressing or clarifying some concepts, among others.
    • Rejected: the author receives the decision that his/her article was rejected, along with the evaluation of each expert.
  6. In the event that one opinion is positive and the other negative, the article will be submitted to a third opinion by a new evaluator, whose assignment will also be based on his scientific skills and experience in the field of education, pedagogy, curriculum and educational innovation.
  7. For a text to be approved for publication by the Editorial Board of the Diá-logos Journal, it is essential that at least two of the three opinions are positive.
  8. If the article receives comments, the author will have a period of 15 days to send the new version of the work to the editor.
  9. If the article receives corrections with which the author does not agree, the author must send his evaluations to the Editorial Board. The editor of Diá-logos will have the final decision taking into account the comments of the evaluators and the author.
  10. If the evaluators point out corrections in a second round, the procedure will be repeated again. If after the second evaluation, the evaluators again request changes, the article will be rejected for exceeding the limit of modifications of the articles.

The estimated time for publication of an article from receipt, review by the editor, peer reviewers and overcoming deficiencies by the author is approximately 4 months.