Two peer reviewers will independently review each submitted article. The review process applies the double-blind method. The decision of publication, modification, or rejection is based on the transparency of the reports/suggestions of the referees. The process begins when the author receives confirmation of receipt of the manuscript, indicating whether the extensive "starts" the peer review process or if it were "rejected" to start it. This decision would depend on the formal aspects, thematic relevance, and originality. After that, the Editor-in-Chief will send the extensive review through the double-blind method to the first referee; Once the first arbitration is completed, the author will be informed of the initial assessment result. Then, the author must send the extensive with the suggestions worked on to continue with the second arbitration; once received, the Editor-in-Chief proceeds to designate the second review of the double-blind process; Once the review is completed, the Editor sends the second referee's suggestions to the author. Once the author has worked on the recommendations, he must send the complete version back to the platform. Finally, once the peer review process is completed, the Editor-in-Chief evaluates the arbitrations and suggestions worked on to rule on the length; Once the decision is made, the author will receive the article's opinion, which can be rejected or approved to be published in future editions.

Processing Charges and Other Charges (APC):

Technological-Educational Journal Docentes 2.0 (TEDJ) implements the Article Processing Charge (APC), which is the charge, cost, or amount for processing that some journals require from authors to publish their articles in open access after the acceptance of the manuscript. This APC is applied to all academic, administrative, teaching, student, and research collaborators. The amount varies according to the number of authors see the link, and the maximum is four (4) authors 199.99 USD. However, RTED does NOT financially compensate those who contribute to it with their publications.

After being reviewed, there will be four (4) kinds of editor decisions based on reviewers’ recommendations:

1. Accept Submission: The submission will be accepted without revisions.
2. Revisions Required: The submission will be accepted after minor changes have been made.
3. Resubmit for Review: The submission needs to be reworked, but with significant changes, may be accepted. It will require a second round of review, however.
4. Decline Submission: The submission will not be published in the journal.

Once a manuscript is submitted, it is assigned to the most appropriate Editor to handle it, based on the subject of the manuscript and the availability of the Editors. If the editor determines that the manuscript is not of sufficient quality to go through the standard review process or if the subject of the manuscript is not appropriate to the journal's scope, the editor rejects the manuscript without further processing. 

If the editor determines that the submitted manuscript is of sufficient quality and within the journal's scope, assign the manuscript to a minimum of 2 external reviewers for peer review. Reviewers submit their reports on the manuscripts along with their recommendation of one of the following actions to the Editor:

Accept submission (publish unaltered)

Revisions required (consider after minor changes)

Resend for review (consider after significant changes)

Rejection of submission (Rejection: the manuscript is faulty or not new enough)

When all reviewers have submitted their reports, the editor can make one of the following decisions: publish unchanged, consider after minor changes, consider after significant changes, or reject. 

If the publisher recommends "Publish Unaltered", the manuscript is accepted for publication. The manuscript is then assigned a DOI number and goes to the Advanced Online section of the Journal.

If the editor recommends "Consider after minor changes", the authors are notified to prepare and submit a final copy of their manuscript with the required minor changes suggested by the reviewers. The editor reviews the revised manuscript after the authors have made minor changes. Once the editor is satisfied with the final manuscript, the manuscript can be accepted. The revised manuscript must be submitted within two weeks. If you think you cannot meet the deadline, notify the Editorial Office.

If the editor recommends "Consider after major changes" the recommendation is communicated to the authors. Authors are expected to review their manuscripts according to the changes recommended by the reviewers and submit their revised manuscripts within two months. Submission after that will be considered a new submission that will go through the entire review process. If you think you cannot meet the deadline, notify the Editorial Office.

If the Editor recommends rejecting the manuscript, the rejection is immediate. Furthermore, if two of the reviewers recommend rejecting the manuscript, the rejection is immediate. The editorial workflow gives Editors the authority to reject any manuscript due to inappropriate subject matter, lack of quality, or incorrect results. The Editor cannot assign himself as an external reviewer of the manuscript. This is to ensure a high-quality, fair, and impartial peer review of each manuscript submitted to the journal. Any manuscript must be recommended by one or more external reviewers (usually two or more) and the editor in charge. of the publication. the manuscript to be accepted for publication in the journal.

In the double-blind peer-review process,  the reviewers do not know who the manuscript's authors are, and the authors do not have access to information about the reviewers. Without the crucial contributions made by the peer reviewers, the journal's publication would not be possible.

Review and respond to reviewers

Authors must provide a detailed response letter; Copy and paste each reviewer's comments and provide specific responses. The authors should specify what changes were made to the manuscript and highlight the changes in the revised manuscript file. General statements (eg "accepted comment", "corrected discussion") should be avoided. The response letter should be written so that responses can be sent to reviewers without prior editing.

The whole process is based on the guide for evaluators of the journal See the following link