Peer review process
Peer Review Process
Medición y Evaluación del Aprendizaje Inclusivo (MEAI) uses double-blind external peer review. The identities of authors and reviewers are concealed from each other during scientific evaluation. All four article types published by the journal, Original Research Articles, Review Articles, Systematic Reviews, and Brief Communications, undergo peer review when they pass the initial editorial screening.
Principles
- Peer review supports editorial decision-making and improvement of the manuscript; reviewers do not make the publication decision.
- Reviewers are selected for relevant expertise and must be independent of the authors and the work under evaluation.
- The journal normally seeks at least two external and independent reviewer reports before a manuscript can be accepted.
- The process must be fair, confidential, respectful, evidence-based, and free from coercive citation or other manipulation.
- Reviewers are expected to follow recognized ethical principles such as the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers.
Editorial Workflow and Target Timeframes
The following timeframes are operational targets used to organize the editorial process. They are not guarantees of acceptance or fixed decision dates. Complex manuscripts, difficulty identifying appropriate reviewers, major revisions, ethics or integrity investigations, holidays, or delays by authors or reviewers may extend the process. When a material delay occurs, the editorial office should inform the corresponding author and the author may withdraw the manuscript before acceptance.
| Stage | What happens | Indicative target | Responsible role |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Submission and technical check | OJS metadata, completeness, anonymization, article type, required declarations, file integrity, and basic formatting are checked. | 7 to 10 working days | Editorial office / Editor |
| 2. Initial editorial assessment | Scope, scientific relevance, basic methodological adequacy, originality/integrity concerns, ethical documentation, and readiness for review are assessed. A manuscript may be rejected without external review if it clearly fails these requirements. | 5 to 7 working days | Editor; Editor-in-Chief oversight as needed |
| 3. Reviewer selection and invitation | Qualified external reviewers are identified, conflicts are checked, and invitations are issued. | 10 to 30 working days, depending on availability | Editor |
| 4. External double-blind review | Reviewers evaluate the scientific contribution, methods, analysis, reporting, ethics, interpretation, and presentation. | 15 to 30 calendar days after accepting the invitation | At least two external reviewers |
| 5. Editorial synthesis | The Editor examines the reports, resolves obvious inconsistencies, may seek an additional review, and communicates an editorial request for revision or a recommendation to the Editor-in-Chief. | 5 to 7 working days after sufficient reports are received | Editor |
| 6. Author revision | Authors submit a revised manuscript and a point-by-point response. Every substantive comment should be answered. | Minor revision: normally 10 to 15 days. Major revision: normally up to 30 days. Extensions may be requested. | Authors |
| 7. Re-review or editorial verification | Major revisions, disputed issues, or technically complex changes may be returned to the original reviewers or to additional reviewers. Minor revisions may be verified editorially. | 7 to 21 days when re-review is required | Reviewers and/or Editor |
| 8. Final scientific decision | The complete record, reviewer reports, revisions, author responses, integrity information, and editorial recommendation are assessed. The final decision is communicated with reasons. | Normally 5 to 7 working days after the file is ready for decision | Editor-in-Chief |
| 9. Production | Accepted manuscripts proceed to copyediting, reference and metadata checks, DOI/identifier preparation, XML-JATS production, layout/proofs, and final publication preparation. | Normally 7 to 15 working days, subject to author proof response and technical requirements | Editorial/production team |
Possible Editorial Outcomes
- Reject after initial editorial assessment: the manuscript is outside scope, does not meet minimum scientific/ethical requirements, is insufficiently original, or is not suitable for external review in its current form.
- Major revision: substantial changes, new analyses, methodological clarification, additional evidence, or extensive rewriting are required before a new decision can be considered.
- Minor revision: the scientific contribution is potentially acceptable but specific corrections or clarifications are required.
- Reject after peer review: the evidence, methods, validity, originality, reporting, ethics, or contribution do not justify publication after review.
- Accept: the manuscript has satisfactorily completed peer review, required revisions, integrity checks, and final editorial assessment.
Reviewer Selection and Independence
Reviewers must have appropriate subject or methodological expertise and must declare conflicts of interest before accepting an invitation. Recent close collaborators, current supervisors or students, close personal relationships, or other relationships that could reasonably impair impartiality should not review the manuscript. Institutional proximity alone is evaluated in context, but the journal avoids reviewer relationships that could compromise independence.
Author-Suggested Reviewers
Authors may suggest qualified reviewers or identify individuals with a documented conflict when the submission system allows it. Suggestions are advisory only. The journal independently verifies reviewer identity, expertise, contact information, and potential conflicts and is under no obligation to invite a suggested reviewer.
Confidentiality
Submitted manuscripts, supplementary files, reviewer identities, review reports, editorial correspondence, and unpublished information are confidential. Reviewers may not share the manuscript, contact authors directly, use unpublished information for personal advantage, or upload confidential material to public generative AI services. Editors are subject to equivalent confidentiality obligations.
Supplementary Material
Supplementary material that supports the study may be made available to reviewers and may be evaluated as part of the scientific record. Reviewers may request access to underlying data or additional documentation through the Editor when necessary to evaluate the manuscript. Direct contact with authors is not permitted.
Reviewer Reports
Review reports are anonymous and are not published with the article as part of the journal's standard model. Reviewers should provide specific, constructive, and evidence-based comments. Personal attacks, discriminatory remarks, unsupported accusations, coercive citation requests, or comments unrelated to scientific evaluation may be removed or withheld from the author.
Disagreement Between Reviewers
Conflicting recommendations do not determine the outcome by vote. The Editor evaluates the reasoning and evidence in each report and may request clarification, invite an additional reviewer, or seek specialist methodological advice. Reviewers recommend; Editors assess the record; the Editor-in-Chief makes the final publication decision.
Final Decision
The final decision to accept or reject a manuscript rests exclusively with the Editor-in-Chief. The decision is based on the manuscript, reviewer reports, author responses, editorial assessment, scientific validity, relevance, integrity, ethical compliance, and the journal policies. Institutional status, author prestige, commercial considerations, fees, sponsorship, or pressure from external parties must not influence the scientific decision.
Editorial Conflicts of Interest
An Editor must recuse from a manuscript when a personal, professional, financial, institutional, collaborative, supervisory, family, or other relationship could reasonably impair impartiality. If the Editor-in-Chief is an author, recent collaborator, direct competitor, family member of an author, or otherwise conflicted, a non-conflicted Editor is formally designated as Acting Editor-in-Chief for that manuscript. The conflicted person must not select reviewers, access confidential reviewer identities, influence the evaluation, or participate in the final decision.
Appeals
Authors may appeal a decision when they identify a substantive scientific error, procedural irregularity, undisclosed conflict, or material misunderstanding in the review or decision. An appeal should be submitted through the journal contact channel, normally within 30 calendar days, and should respond specifically to the decision grounds. An appeal is not a new round of review solely because the authors disagree with reviewer opinion. The Editor-in-Chief determines the appeal procedure unless conflicted, in which case an independent Acting Editor-in-Chief handles it.
