Standards for evaluators

General aspects:
1. A first review is carried out by the editorial director in conjunction with the editorial committee, with the intention of determining whether the article submitted complies with the editorial standards and is within the thematic areas of interest for publication in the journal, applying plagiarism detection by means of specialised software. In the event that the article submitted does not comply with the above, it will be returned to the author (either for refusal before refereeing, corrections before refereeing or to recommend another journal depending on the subject matter).
2.    The editorial process from receipt to the refereeing verdict to the author(s) by the journal will take a maximum of 10 weeks, provided that there are no external conditions that may affect the indicated periodicity, for which the author(s) will be informed in a timely manner about the novelty.
All manuscripts will be reviewed anonymously. Authors should suggest three possible reviewers they consider suitable to evaluate their work (the Journal is not obliged to send them for arbitration), clearly indicating their name and e-mail address. Likewise, authors may indicate any person who, for different reasons, they do not wish to see involved in the review process of their work.
Evaluation procedure:
1.    The reviewers will have a period of 30 continuous days, from the receipt of the article, to send to the Director - Editor, the evaluation report of the same. The Director - Editor will send this report to the author within a maximum period of 5 continuous days.
2.    The work of the reviewers is strictly confidential. The journal is not responsible for the performance of the reviewers, who are completely autonomous.
3.    For the arbitration of articles, double-blind peer review will be used, in which the reviewers do not know the identity of the authors of the articles, and the authors do not know the identity of the reviewers.
4.    Originality, relevance, style and contributions to the field will be evaluated.
5.    The evaluators will use the instrument proposed by the journal for the evaluation of the article.
6.    Articles are refereed and classified in the following categories: Approved, Approved with modifications and Not Approved.
7.    Any matter not covered by the editorial rules will be at the discretion of the Editorial Committee.
Editorial process
 
1.    The editorial process from receipt to the refereeing verdict to the author or authors by the journal will take a maximum of 10 weeks, provided that there are no external conditions that may affect the indicated periodicity, for which the author or authors will be informed in a timely manner about the novelty.
2.    Contributors will upload the article to the Journal's OJS. At the beginning of the article, the names and surnames of the contributor(s), their (electronic) address, institution of affiliation or community and their respective ORCID must be specified. All contributors must be registered at https://orcid.org/ 
3.    The periodicity of the journal is quarterly for ordinary issues.
4.    Special issues may be published with the prior approval of the editorial committee, where topics of scientific interest are addressed.
5.    All manuscripts will be reviewed anonymously. Authors should suggest three possible reviewers they consider suitable to evaluate their work (the Journal is not obliged to send them for refereeing), clearly indicating their name and e-mail address. Authors may also indicate any person who, for various reasons, they do not wish to see involved in the review process of their work.
6.    Proposals submitted for review in the journal must be: a) unpublished, b) works that have been published in whole or in part will not be accepted, nor those that are in the process of publication or have been proposed to other journals for editorial assessment, c) the authors, by submitting the manuscript, assume and accept that there is no conflict of interest between the parties, as well as with third parties or institutions, declaring the authenticity of the proposal, being them the only ones responsible for the content, d) the articles must fully comply with the present editorial standards in order to be admitted to the peer review process, e) once the article has been approved by the referees, a grammatical review will be carried out, f) once all the above criteria have been met, the article will be published in the next available issue.
7.    The Journal, following the COPE guidelines on Ethics and Good Practice, defends academic non-endogamy and that is why the texts approved for each issue are at least 70% external, coming from teachers and researchers outside the publishing entity.
8.    With the approval of the editorial committee, ordinary issues may be published before the start of the declared period. Approved articles will be published in the immediately available issue.
9.    The controversies that could be generated about the published knowledge will be the responsibility of the author or authors of the article, who may be contacted via email, and who will be able to express judgement or discussion on the topic addressed, as long as this is done in an academic and scientific climate, thus developing a process of feedback that builds science and knowledge.
10.    The final decision on the evaluation process, publication or non-publication of articles rests exclusively with the Director - Editor and the Editorial Committee, and will be made on the basis of the suggestions/observations/recommendations issued by the evaluators. All articles are subjected to an editorial evaluation process, even when they have been peer-reviewed; and if necessary, the authors will receive the appropriate recommendations to improve the quality of the articles to be published.  
11.    The evaluators will have a period of 30 continuous days, from the reception of the article, to send to the Director - Editor, the evaluation report of the same. The Director - Editor will send this report to the author within a maximum period of 5 continuous days.
12.    The work of the reviewers is strictly confidential. The journal is not responsible for the performance of the reviewers, who are completely autonomous.
13.    For the arbitration of articles, double-blind peer review will be used, in which the reviewers do not know the identity of the authors of the articles, and the authors do not know the identity of the reviewers.
14.    Originality, relevance, style and contributions to the field will be evaluated.
15.    Articles are refereed and classified in the following categories: Approved, Approved with modifications and Not Approved.
16.    Peer reviewers are from institutions external to the journal.
17.    Peer reviewers will belong to different institutions and countries with the intention of maintaining anonymity among the jury, as well as minimising the possibility of bias in the refereeing decision.
18.    Peer reviewers and authors will remain anonymous.
19.    Any issues not covered by the editorial guidelines will be at the discretion of the Editorial and Scientific Committee of the journal. 
20. It is recommended that the peer review process be reviewed with the intention of complementing the provisions of this section.