Reviewing process

All articles (research, systematic literature reviews, experiences, and essays) that comply with the formal requirements and scope stipulated by the Andean Journal of Education will be sent to each issue's editors. The editors will conduct at least two double-blind external evaluations and request additional reviews in cases where necessary. The manuscripts will circulate anonymously.

The editors and Editorial team will know the result of this evaluation. The evaluation criteria include originality, relevance of the issue, adequate problem formulation, ample theoretical or conceptual discussion, appropriate use of analysis methods, clear presentation of the results, and relevance of the bibliography. Also, the good use of language, clarity, and expositional rigour will be evaluated.

The journal reserves the right to accept or reject the articles, essays, and reviews received; the final decision corresponds to the journal's editors. Their publication can also be delayed on a case-by-case basis upon notification from the author.

The evaluation process of an article takes six weeks on average.

Preliminary review

Within a week, the journal's editors will email the main author (who sent the article through the OJS) with the decision of acceptance or rejection to continue the process. If accepted, the article begins the peer review process.

In the initial review, the following points are taken into account:

  1. The manuscript is sent through the journal system of the Simón Bolívar Andean University (OJS).
  2. The manuscript is within the thematic scope of the journal.
  3. The authorship information and institutional affiliation data, including the ORCID number, are complete and sent separately.
  4. The authors' instructions regarding the section, structure, and length of the manuscript are considered.
  5. Bibliographic references are current, are in APA format, and have their respective URL and/or DOI links.
  6. The manuscript has not been previously published in another journal.
  7. The manuscript passes the plagiarism check.
  8. The document of rights transfer to the Andean Journal of Education for the first publication of the manuscript is attached.

Suppose the manuscripts do not comply with any of the previous points and do not present evidence of plagiarism or previous publication. In that case, the authors will be given ten days to send the corrected version.

Manuscripts accepted for review initiate the peer review process, and the author can monitor the process on the Andean Journal of Education platform.

Peer-review process

All the articles (research, systematic literature reviews, experiences, and essays) that comply with the formal requirements and scope stipulated by the Andean Journal of Education will be sent to editors, who will conduct at least two double-blind external evaluations, requesting additional reviews in cases where it is considered necessary. The manuscripts will circulate anonymously.

Before the review, the reviewers must approve the confidentiality and conflict of interest statement.

Declaration of confidentiality and conflict of interest:

I understand that I will have access to confidential information. Therefore, I will not be able to use the information to which I have access (such as disclosure of results before publication or disclosure of the concepts elaborated) for personal benefit, make it known, or put its disposition of the benefit of any other person and organization. If, in reading the work, I find an ethical impediment or conflict of interest that may affect my concept, I will inform the editor so that he can reassign the document to another peer evaluator.

Subsequently, they must make three types of judgment: a summary of the article's quality using a rubric, the elaboration of detailed comments and observations, consigning the line number or including comments in the manuscript, and the issuance of an editorial recommendation.

The evaluation criteria included in the rubric and are the basis for elaborating comments and observations include originality, the relevance of the topic, the adequate formulation of the problem, the broad theoretical or conceptual discussion, the appropriate use of analysis methods, the clear presentation of the results and the relevance of the references. Besides, the good use of the language, clarity, and expository rigor will be valued.

The editorial recommendation is based on one of the following criteria:

  1. Accept this submission. This means the manuscript is accepted without revision and can proceed to the editing stage.
  2. Publishable with modifications. In this case, the manuscript's author must correct, reformulate, and expand what the evaluation requires within a period determined by the editors.
  3. Resubmit for review. This will require the author to make major changes and another round of review to take place.
  4. Forward to another publication. In this case, the manuscript's author is suggested to publish it in another of the Universidad Andina Simón Bolívar journals due to its thematic relevance.
  5. Not publishable. This means the submission has not passed peer review and is unsuitable for further consideration. The submission would then be moved to the Archives.
  6. View comments. No criterion is issued in this case, and the editor's decision is requested based on the review comments.

A review form is provided to carry out this task, which must be completed and attached when uploading the review to the Andean Journal of Education platform.

The editors and the Editorial team will know the result of this evaluation. 

The journal reserves the right to accept or reject the sent articles, systematic literature reviews, essays, and reviews; the last decision corresponds to the issue's editor. Their publication can also be delayed on a case-by-case basis upon notification to the author.

The peer evaluation process of an article takes four weeks on average. However, in the case of discrepancies between the reviewers, additional revisions can be requested, prolonging the process by at least two weeks.

Ethical practices for reviewers:

  • Perform a critical, honest, constructive, unbiased review that guarantees the research article's academic quality.
  • Immediately notify if, for some reason, you cannot evaluate the article, either because it is not in your field of expertise or because you cannot comply with the evaluation report delivery within the established timeframe.
  • Always maintain confidentiality concerning the authorship of the article to review.
  • Evaluation reports are delivered in the established revision template and substantiate the evaluations that have led you to your decision.
  • Precisely indicate the bibliographical references of fundamental works that the author has possibly forgotten.
  • Inform the editors of any similarity between the research article and other published works.

The evaluation is always carried out anonymously. If, for any reason, the author's identity, institutional affiliations, or any other information has been compromised that puts the document's anonymity at risk, the reviewer should immediately notify the editors.