Reviewers | Horizontes

Brief description of the article selection process

Horizontes Revista de Investigación en Ciencias de la Educación is a journal that submits manuscripts to peer review by specialists in a double-blind process.

All manuscripts submitted to the journal will undergo preliminary examination by the Editorial Team of Horizontes Revista de Investigación en Ciencias de la Educación. Specifically, it will be examined whether the article aligns with the journal’s objectives. This decision will be communicated to the author no later than 2 weeks from the receipt of the article.

If the manuscript complies with the guidelines and falls within the scope of the journal, the editors will send the article to at least two internationally selected reviewers. The guidelines for the reviewers and the criteria they apply are related to content quality, relevance, scientific nature, topic interest, whether scientific methodology was used, the updated use of primary and secondary literature, and bibliography. The peer review system is conducted anonymously. Reviewers are encouraged to follow the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers, available at www.publicationethics.org.

The final decision on the acceptance or rejection of the article rests with the Editorial Team. Normally, decisions are communicated within 6 weeks of the article submission.

Summary of the peer review process

Pre-review: Authors (previously registered on the journal’s platform https://revistahorizontes.org/index.php/revistahorizontes/user/register) begin the process by submitting the article via the OJS platform of Horizontes Revista de Investigación en Ciencias de la Educación https://revistahorizontes.org/index.php/revistahorizontes/login. In this stage, the editor, in collaboration with the Editorial Committee, performs a preliminary review of the manuscript and evaluates:

Quality of the content, relevance to the discipline, scientific nature, interest of the topic, whether scientific methodology was used, the updated use of bibliography, and relevant legal material.
Relevance to the journal’s editorial scope.
Compliance with presentation requirements.
Initial plagiarism and AI usage review. If criteria 2 and 3 are not met, the authors will be informed and allowed to make corrections. In the case of plagiarism detection, and depending on the complexity, the Editorial Committee will inform the authors of the rejection or possibility for correction. If all criteria are met, the manuscript moves to the peer review phase.

Peer Review: The Editor-in-Chief, in collaboration with the Editorial Committee, invites peer reviewers based on the following criteria:

The reviewer must have academic qualifications and a research profile with publications in the relevant area of knowledge.
The reviewer must not have conflicts of interest that could affect the evaluation process.

To perform the evaluation, reviewers will use the online form or a Word file, and they are encouraged to include comments or send an anonymous copy of the manuscript with feedback.
The evaluation options are:

Rejected: The manuscript does not meet the relevance, originality, and quality criteria.
Accepted with major corrections: The article can be accepted after a second peer review process.
Accepted with minor corrections: The Editorial Committee requests changes from the authors. Once these changes are made, the article is accepted.
Accepted: The article may be published.

In cases where the Committee deems it necessary, a third reviewer may be consulted, whose opinion will be considered in the final decision.
Approval or Rejection: The final decision to publish depends on the Editorial Committee and requires compliance with style guidelines and anti-plagiarism review.
Authors whose articles have been approved with modifications and/or approved for publication commit to making content, form, and style corrections within 5 business days after the request.

Detailed description of the article selection process

Step 1: Pre-verification

Responsible: Editor-in-Chief
Outcome: The editor will send the author an email with the decision to accept the article for peer review, request modifications, or reject the article.
Timeframe: 2 weeks

In the pre-verification stage, the following elements are reviewed:

Whether the article is within the scope of the journal’s thematic and methodological approach.
Whether the author information, affiliations, and metadata are complete and reliable.
Whether the document meets the journal’s criteria (see Author Guidelines).
Whether the bibliography is appropriately sized, respects the proportions of documents indexed in Scopus or WoS, is international, up-to-date, and composed of recognized sources with their respective DOI links.
Whether the article has been previously published.
Whether the article complies with the best practices for scientific publishing and ethics described by COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics), Singapore Statement on Research Integrity, and Elsevier Publishing Ethics Resource Kit.
Whether there is any evidence of plagiarism or excessive use of AI in the manuscript.
Whether the manuscript meets the minimum style, spelling, and punctuation standards.
Whether the article includes the required annexes, including the Article Submission Letter (https://revistahorizontes.org/index.php/revistahorizontes/information/authors).

Manuscripts presenting evidence of plagiarism, false author information, or any other ethical violation will be immediately rejected. Articles that do not meet other criteria (unrelated to plagiarism or ethical aspects) will have the opportunity to submit a revised version within a specified time limit. Manuscripts that do not include the required documentation (https://revistahorizontes.org/index.php/revistahorizontes/information/authors) cannot proceed to the review process until these requirements are met.

Due to the diversity of topics in the field of educational sciences, the editor-in-chief may request assistance from the Editorial Coordinator and the Scientific Committee for the initial review.

Online Tracking: Once an article is accepted for peer review, the article status on the journal platform will change from "pending assignment" to "under review." From that moment, the author can track the status of the process under the "Review" tab.

The submission platform assigns a unique identifier to each article. When making an inquiry or sending an email, authors should ensure that the assigned code is included in the subject line.

Step 2: Peer Review

Responsible: Editor-in-Chief, Assistant Editor
Timeframe: Approximately 4 to 6 weeks, depending on the availability of selected reviewers.

In Horizontes Revista de Investigación en Ciencias de la Educación, article reviews involve peer evaluations by experts who provide guidance on the manuscript’s content (reviewers not on the Editorial Team). This is a double-blind review process, meaning neither the authors nor the reviewers know each other’s identities. At least two reviewers will be assigned. This ensures the confidentiality of the article and the objectivity of the review process.

The reviewer selection criteria include:

The reviewer must hold at least a master's degree in the relevant area of knowledge.
The reviewer must have scientific publications within the last two years in the article’s subject area.
The reviewer must not be affiliated with the same institution as the authors of the article.
The reviewer must not have conflicts of interest with the journal or any of its members: authors, editors, committee members, or administrative staff.

Selected peer reviewers will receive an invitation from the Editor-in-Chief or Assistant Editor to participate in the review process. The reviewer may accept or decline the invitation. If accepted, the reviewer will have access to the full anonymous article and an online form to guide the review process. This will take place via the journal’s OJS platform or through institutional email.

In this process, besides the article’s thematic and field knowledge, the following aspects will be evaluated: Title, abstract, and selected keywords, content and structure of the introduction, methodology, argumentation level, results, discussion, conclusions, and overall impact of the article and its contributions to the field of knowledge.

The reviewer will provide general comments and recommendations to improve the text and issue one of the following verdicts:

Publishable without changes: The revised version of the article meets the requirements and can be published as is.
Publishable with minor changes: The article requires minor changes that can be easily corrected.
Publishable with major changes: The article requires substantial changes, and the revised version must be re-submitted for another peer review or evaluation by the Editorial Committee.
Not publishable (rejected): The article is not suitable for publication. Its publication would not contribute to the field of knowledge.

If there are discrepancies between the peer reviewers' recommendations, the Editor-in-Chief (with the assistance of the Editorial Committee, if needed) will make the final decision on the article. The Editor-in-Chief will issue a certificate to the reviewers of the issue, which will be sent by email within the next month.

The Editor-in-Chief will issue a certificate to the reviewers, which will be sent to the peer reviewer by email within a month of evaluation.

Any suggestions the reviewers may wish to share with the Editor-in-Chief regarding review parameters, ethical aspects, or recommendations for improvement will be welcome and can be forwarded to the editor’s email.

Reviewers must follow the guidelines outlined by COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) and are responsible for contributing to the decision on the publication of manuscripts, being punctual, maintaining confidentiality, ensuring objectivity, recognizing sources, and declaring conflicts of interest.

Step 3: Editor’s Decision

Responsible: Editor-in-Chief, Editorial Committee
Timeframe: Once recommendations from at least two reviewers are received, the Editor-in-Chief has 2 weeks to communicate the decision to the author.

The Editor-in-Chief may accept (publishable), reject (not publishable), or request additional revisions from the authors (publishable with minor or major changes). If the editor’s decision contradicts the peer reviewers' recommendations, it must be justified.

The decision to publish may be delegated to invited editors (if applicable). The editor with a conflict of interest will be excluded from the decision-making process.

The author will receive an email with the editor’s decision, which will include a summary of the comments and suggestions made by the peer reviewers and will set a deadline for the author to complete the review process.

Online Tracking: The editor’s decision will be reflected as a change in the article's status on the journal platform. When the decision is "not publishable," the article will be immediately removed from the review process, and the author will find the details in the “archive” section.

Step 4: Manuscript Adjustments by the Authors

Responsible: Authors

Timeframe: Once the editor’s decision has been issued, the authors have the following timeframes to review the peer reviewers’ comments, implement the required revisions, and submit the necessary documentation:

Up to 1 week when the decision is “publishable with minor revisions”
Up to 2 weeks when the decision is “publishable with major revisions”

Publishable:

The decision "publishable" will be issued when:

The peer reviewers’ comments were positive, and the article was accepted for publication with no further comments from the reviewers.
The article required minor changes, which were made, and it passed the second round of reviews.
The article required significant changes, which were made, and it passed the second round of reviews.

Once the final version of the article is received, a final plagiarism check is conducted, and all required documents are verified.

Online Tracking: Once the decision "publishable" is issued, the article's status on the platform will change to "in editing." The author can track the progress in the "in editing" section.

Publishable with Minor Changes: In this case, the article only requires minor changes that can be easily corrected. The authors must address all peer reviewers' suggestions within the established timeline. If the author decides not to follow any of these recommendations, they must justify it in writing, in which case the editor reserves the right to make the final decision on such considerations. Once the changes are received, the Editor-in-Chief may decide to issue the "publishable" decision or may request further clarifications or changes if necessary.

Publishable with Major Changes: Once the comments are received, the Editor-in-Chief may issue the "publishable" decision if all the appropriate corrections are made or "not publishable" if the article does not meet the reviewers' criteria.

Step 5: Formatting, Approval, and Publication

Responsible: Authors, Publication Coordinator, Designer

Timeframe: 20 days for formatting and review.

3 business days to address any issues that may arise during the review process (authors).
3 business days to make changes if required (designer).
3 business days to publish the final version online (publication coordinator).

Accepted articles will be sent to the assigned designer, who will begin the review and formatting process. Through the publication coordinator, the designer may consult the authors regarding any doubts related to style, context, or the arrangement of figures or tables (use of technical terms, improvements in coherence, formula and symbol structure, missing sources or citations, etc.).

The author will have 5 days to respond to and address any requests made by the designer.
The final version of the formatted article will include the DOI identifier and assigned page numbers (publication coordinator).
The publication team will inform the author of any changes made for technical or administrative reasons within the established timelines.

Step 6: Correction and Retraction

Responsible: Publication Team, Editorial Committee, Authors, Readers, and Institutional Entities

Timeframe: In the case of an issue, 1 week to initiate the protocol.

Documentation: Meeting minutes, institutional protocols, and ethical guidelines from COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics), Singapore Statement on Research Integrity, and Elsevier’s Publishing Ethics Resource Kit.

Horizontes Revista de Investigación en Ciencias de la Educación is an open-access publication, meaning anyone can view and verify the text without restrictions or cost. If you, as a reader, have any issues with an article, you can send your concerns, comments, and suggestions to the journal's email.

If an error or ethical issue is identified, please contact us to begin an appropriate investigation and take immediate corrective actions. If the error or ethical issue is confirmed, the process for correction or retraction will be initiated.

Once the article is published, major errors will be corrected separately through a retraction document at the end of each issue.

Minor errors that do not affect the understanding of the work will be corrected in the online versions within 15 days following publication.

Retractions are published when authors, readers, or editors find significant errors in a published article. These errors may be unintentional or the result of scientific misconduct.

The editors will examine the document in question and will communicate with the authors and the relevant bodies of the publishing entity before making a final decision regarding the retraction. For this purpose, the journal will follow its institutional protocols and the recommendations of COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics), the Singapore Statement on Research Integrity, and Elsevier’s Publishing Ethics Resource Kit in order to assess the alleged misconduct or malpractice.

When accepting the editor’s invitation to review the article, the reviewer must declare that they have no conflicts of interest and comply with the confidentiality and plagiarism standards established by the journal, which are published on the website.

Step 7: Publication Ethics and Social Control

The Editorial Team will take all reasonable measures to identify and prevent the publication of manuscripts that have involved malpractice such as plagiarism, incorrect citation, or data falsification. If malpractice is detected, the manuscript will be directly rejected. If malpractice is discovered after publication, a retraction or correction will be issued.

Readers are encouraged to report plagiarism issues to the editor’s email. Once the possible existence of malpractice is verified, the editorial procedure for the manuscript will be suspended. The deadline for submitting any observations is 10 business days. If no response is received or after receiving the author's explanations, the editor must make a decision. The editor’s decision can be appealed to the Editorial Committee of the Journal (secretaria@revistahorizontes.org).