Reviewer Guidelines

In this section, reviewers will find essential norms and guidelines to guide them in manuscript evaluation. These guidelines provide key criteria and standards to follow when conducting thorough reviews, ensuring fair and consistent evaluation of submitted works and thus contributing to the quality and credibility of the peer review process.

• 
• 
• 

 

Instructions for OJS Review

• 

 

Ethics

Alternancia - Journal of Education and Research will ensure that the editorial team, reviewers, and 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).

Reviewers' Commitments

• Participation in Editorial Decision-Making: Peer review plays a crucial role in supporting editors in making decisions regarding submitted manuscripts. It also provides authors with the opportunity to improve their work quality prior to potential publication. Reviewers commit to conducting a critical, honest, and constructive evaluation, free from bias, both in terms of scientific merit and writing quality, based on their expertise and competence.
• Adherence to Review Deadlines: If a reviewer feels they lack the necessary expertise to evaluate the subject matter or cannot meet the established review period, they must notify the editors immediately. Reviewers commit to completing reviews as promptly as possible, ensuring deadlines are met. At Alternancia, strict policies are enforced regarding the retention of pending manuscripts, out of respect for authors and their work.
• Confidentiality: Each assigned manuscript must be treated 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 assess manuscripts impartially and objectively, based solely on scientific and academic merit. Personal biases or preconceived notions must not influence their evaluation.
• Recognition of Missing References: Reviewers commit to accurately identifying relevant bibliographic citations that the author may have omitted. Additionally, they must inform the editors if they detect similarities or overlaps between the manuscript under review and previously published works.
• Anonymity: To ensure fairness, objectivity, and transparency in the review process, authors anonymity is preserved before their manuscripts are sent for peer review. If at any point a reviewer becomes aware of the authors’ identities, institutional affiliations, or any information that could reveal their identity and compromise the manuscript confidentiality, the reviewer is obligated to report it immediately to the editors.
• Plagiarism: If a reviewer has concerns regarding substantial content reproduction in relation to prior works, they must inform the editors and provide detailed references to the earlier work whenever possible. The journal mandates the use of plagiarism and self-plagiarism detection systems, such as Turnitin, by both reviewers and editors.
• Fraud: If any doubts arise—whether significant or minor—regarding the results authenticity or accuracy presented in a manuscript, it is essential to report these concerns to the editors.