Guidelines for Reviewers
Download the format.
Manuscripts submitted to Humanities, Technology and Education (HUTECEDU) are evaluated by at least two external and independent reviewers, under a double-blind peer review model, which guarantees the anonymity of both authors and reviewers. The reviewers' comments are a fundamental guide for the Editorial Committee to make informed decisions regarding the acceptance, modification or rejection of the papers.
Selection of Reviewers
In selecting reviewers, the editorial team considers the following criteria:
-Adequate academic background, preferably with a doctoral degree.
-Proven experience in the subject area of the manuscript.
-Ability to evaluate with scientific and academic criteria.
-Absence of conflicts of interest with the authors or institutions involved.
Reviewer Responsibilities
In accepting a request for review, reviewers are expected to fulfill the following responsibilities:
-Declare any potential conflicts of interest prior to initiating the review.
-Decline the invitation in a timely manner if they are not available and, if possible, suggest alternative reviewers.
-Complete and submit their report within the established deadline.
Provide an objective, unbiased and well-founded evaluation, with specific and constructive comments.
-Inform the editorial team of any suspicion of inappropriate conduct or misconduct detected in the manuscript.
-Maintain absolute confidentiality about the content of the manuscript during and after the review process.
HUTECEDU follows the principles of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), promoting transparent and ethical publication. Therefore, reviewers should familiarize themselves with and act in accordance with the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Reviewers, available on the organization's official website.
The efficiency of the editorial process depends to a large extent on smooth communication between the journal and its reviewers. Therefore, reviewers are expected to:
-Accept or decline the invitation within a reasonable time frame, after reviewing the title and abstract of the manuscript.
-Notify the journal immediately if they require a deadline extension or are unable to complete the review.
-Suggest possible alternative reviewers if they are unable to take on the task.
Confidentiality and Professional Conduct
-All manuscripts must be treated as confidential documents.
-No use, disclosure or distribution of content prior to official publication is permitted.
-Reviewers must prepare their own reports and not delegate the task without prior authorization from the editorial team.
-If another expert collaborates in the review, permission must be requested in advance and his or her contribution must be acknowledged in the evaluation report.
Declaration of Conflicts of Interest
Before accepting a review, reviewers must declare any
competing interests that may compromise their objectivity. These interests may be of a personal or professional nature:
-Personal or professional
-Economic or institutional
-Intellectual, ideological or religious in nature
When in doubt, the editorial team should be consulted for guidance.
Reporting Possible Ethical Irregularities
Reviewers should report any indication of:
-Plagiarism or self-plagiarism
-Redundant or duplicate publication
-Manipulation of data or results
Non-compliance with ethical standards in human or animal studies.
These suspicions should be reported directly to the editorial office for formal investigation.
Editorial Evaluation Criteria
Reviewers should complete a structured form that includes the following aspects:
1.Originality: The manuscript should present genuine results, without plagiarism or falsification, and contribute novel knowledge.
Relevance: The content should be relevant to the scope of the journal and have potential impact in its area of study.
Methodological Rigor: The research should be well-founded, with a clear and replicable methodology.
4.Ethics: Studies are expected to comply with the corresponding ethical principles, especially if they involve human beings or animals.
5.Writing Quality: The text should be written clearly, coherently and without grammatical errors to ensure effective scientific communication.
Reviewers are encouraged to offer suggestions that contribute to the strengthening of the manuscript, even in cases where rejection is recommended. All editorial decisions are based on a thorough analysis of the reports received, thus ensuring a fair, transparent and rigorous process.
