Information for reviewers


INNOEDUCA'S board of external evaluators is an essential collegiate body to be able to guarantee the excellence of scientific publication, due to the blind review based exclusively on the quality of the contents of the manuscripts and carried out by experts of recognized international prestige in the field. It is the best guarantee and the best endorsement for the advancement of science and for preserving original and valuable scientific production.

The evaluation of manuscripts by international experts is the fundamental key to selecting the articles with the greatest impact for the scientific community. This review also allows authors to have objective reports on the strengths and weaknesses of their manuscripts once their manuscripts are estimated to be evaluated, under external criteria.

All the reviews in INNOEDUCA use the internationally standardized "double-blind" peer review system that guarantees the anonymity of the manuscripts, audited within the "OJS" Platform (Open Journal System), generating between two and three reports for each manuscript, both national and international reviewers.

The Journal publishes the list of reviewers once a year on its official website.


Criteria for acceptance / rejection of reviewed manuscripts

The INNOEDUCA Journal requests the collaboration of external reviewers in order to facilitate communication with manuscript authors. The acceptance of the evaluation of an article entails:

  • - Academic knowledge and experience on the topic of the manuscript. Therefore, this necessarily means that authors must have a firm understanding of the topic of the article.
  • - Availability. Reviewing an article requires dedication time to evaluate the article.
  • - Conflict of interests. A conflict of interest may occur as a result of closeness or hostility to the authors if the reviewer identifies them even though their names have been removed from the manuscript. The reviewers must declare any conflict of interest and reject the invitation of the editors to evaluate a manuscript when, for example: they identify the authorship of the same, they are familiarly close to the authors, they belong to the same educational institution, research group, network professional, research project, has published articles with the author, or any other type of connection or conflict. In this case, the reviewer must decline the editor's offer to review the article.
  • - A commitment to confidentiality. The reviewer must maintain strict confidentiality in the evaluation of a manuscript and must not disclose its content to third parties. If the reviewer wishes to obtain a second opinion on the article, he must consult with the editor, whose approval is necessary for the manuscript to be sent to a second reviewer.


Reviewer functions

The task of the external reviewer is to provide a constructive critical analysis of the content of the manuscript, to collaborate with the editors in assessing whether the article is of high scientific value and meets the journal's standards of excellence to be accepted and published.

The opinion of the reviewers is vital to achieve the originality of the article and the excellence that is intended to be achieved.


Ethical issues

If a reviewer believes that the article is a true copy of another work, they should notify the editors, providing detailed citations from the earlier work.

If there is a real or remote suspicion that the results of the article are false or fraudulent, the contributors must also notify the editors.


General criteria for the review of manuscripts

Title. It will be representative and as concise as possible (12-16 words). It must be written in both Spanish and English.

Abstract. It will be included in Spanish (must have between 150 and 300 words) and then its translation into English. The summary must be structured according to the IMRYD format: Introduction, which will include the purpose of the research; Methodology, it will include the basic procedures (design, selection of samples or cases, methods and techniques of experimentation or observation and analysis); Results, main findings (give specific data and its statistical significance, when applicable); and Discussion or conclusions.

Keywords. After the abstract, 3 to 5 keywords or descriptors must be included, expressed in Spanish and English. The authors will use internationally accepted keywords or terms in the field of education to express concepts and contents, extracted from the ERIC Thesaurus (Education Resources Information Center).

Extension. The article must have an extension of between 5,000 and 7,000 words, which will include: title, keywords, abstract (Spanish and English), body of the article, notes, references, and graphic elements.

Structure. In the case of investigations and studies, it is recommended that the article have at least the following aspects: statement of the problem or topic under study, background and theoretical foundation, design and methodology, results, discussion of results, conclusions, limitations of the study and, where appropriate, prospective. If they are funded research, include their source.

Figures and tables. They will be numbered consecutively depending on the type (table, graph, etc.), they will be inserted in the appropriate place within the body of the text of the article. In addition, the images will be attached in a suitable resolution in the same document.

Notes. As far as possible they will be avoided. All annotations will be made at the end of the text duly numbered.

References. They will be presented in alphabetical order and must comply with the APA V. 7 standards. All the citations that are included in the text of the article must have their correspondence in the "references".

Review criteria

Collaboration with INNOEDUCA must entail an exhaustive analysis of the manuscript, contrasting the information presented, verification of the scientific literature used in the manuscript. Presenting to the editors a qualitative and quantitative report on the suitability of their publication. For this, an evaluation form will be used that will address the following aspects:

  1. - Presentation data of the article, title, abstract and keywords.
  2. - The topic is of interest to the research community.
  3. - Scientific and methodological rigor of the article.
  4. - The abstract contains the fundamental aspects of the article in a clear and concise manner.
  5. - The keywords significantly collect the content of the article.
  6. - Scientific foundation of the article. Literature review. Importance of references. Update of the review carried out.
  7. - The theoretical foundation is organized in a logical and understandable way for the readers.
  8. - Opportunity, relevance, topicality and interest in the field of innovation and educational technology.
  9. - Organization and internal coherence. Clarity in exposition.
  10. - Suitability of data analysis techniques.
  11. - Interpretation and analysis of data.
  12. - Results of the investigation.
  13. - The justification of the conclusions is coherent, current and is carried out in a clear and fluent manner.
  14. - Relevance and quality of the discussion and conclusions.
  15. - The article presents an important advance of knowledge.
  16. - The article improves knowledge on the subject matter.
  17. - The prospective of the article is consistent with the results and conclusions


Decision on the manuscript

The categories that INNOEDUCA uses to classify a reviewed article are:

  1. - Publishable: The article is suitable for publication in its current form.
  2. - Minor changes: the required changes are minor; the editor will verify that the author made the recommended changes.
  3. - Major Changes: The requested changes are major; the editor will send the article back to the reviewers for their feedback.
  4. - Not publishable: this article is not suitable for publication in INNOEDUCA.