The Technological-Educational Journal Docentes 2.0 follows a double-blind peer review process, ensuring that both the authors’ and reviewers’ identities remain mutually concealed throughout all evaluation stages. This process guarantees impartiality, objectivity, and academic rigor in manuscript assessment, following the Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing and the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Guidelines.

Prior to assignment to reviewers, all manuscripts undergo an originality check using specialized plagiarism detection software.

Stages of the process

1. Initial screening: The Editor-in-Chief verifies compliance with formal requirements, thematic relevance, and originality. Manuscripts failing to meet these criteria are rejected before peer review.

2. Reviewer assignment:  Each manuscript is assigned to a minimum of two external reviewers who are experts in the subject area. The majority of reviewers are external to the publishing institution, ensuring the independence and objectivity of the process. Only in exceptional cases may internal reviewers be considered, provided that they declare the absence of conflicts of interest.

3. First review: The first referee issues their report and recommendations, which are forwarded to the author for revision.

4. Second review: The revised manuscript is sent to the second referee, who provides further evaluation and comments.

5. Editorial decision: The Editor-in-Chief, based on both evaluations, decides whether the manuscript is accepted, accepted with minor changes, returned for major revisions and re-review, or rejected.

6. Final corrections: The author submits the definitive version along with a detailed response letter addressing each reviewer’s comment.

7. Publication: Once accepted, the article is assigned a DOI and scheduled for publication in the corresponding issue.

Estimated timelines

The entire process, from manuscript submission to the final editorial decision, takes a minimum of four (4) months, with an average completion time of 4–6 months, considering all review and revision rounds.

Evaluation criteria

• Originality and relevance of the topic.

• Methodological soundness and scientific rigor.

• Clarity of presentation and argumentative coherence.

• Compliance with the journal’s template and editorial guidelines.

Communication with authors

Authors are informed of the status of their submission at each stage of the process (screening, review, revision requests, acceptance, or rejection).

Language of review

The journal accepts and reviews manuscripts in Spanish and English.

Conflicts of interest and ethics

All reviewers and editorial team members must declare any potential conflicts of interest and abstain from participation in cases where such conflicts exist.

---

Declaration and Reviewer Policies

All reviewers must complete and sign the Reviewer Ethics Declaration Form before starting their work, confirming their commitment to confidentiality, impartiality, and the absence of conflicts of interest.
In addition, reviewers are required to comply with the Reviewer Policies, which establish ethical standards, evaluation guidelines, deadlines, and responsibilities during the review process.