Guidelines for reviewers

The Journal's reviewers adhere to the following parameters within the evaluation process:

1. If a reviewer has a personal, professional, or financial interest that could cause them to benefit from reviewing a manuscript, the reviewer should report the conflict of interest to the journal's editors immediately, rather than conducting the review.
2. A reviewer should not disclose the contents of any manuscript unless the manuscript is accepted for publication and, in that case, only after publication.
3. If a reviewer has evidence of plagiarism by the author of a manuscript, the reviewer must report it to the journal's editors immediately.
4. If a reviewer has evidence of duplicate submission by the author of a manuscript, the reviewer must report it to the journal's editors immediately.
5. Reviewers should avoid using immoderate or disrespectful language in their manuscript reviews.

 ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Responsibilities

The Journal of Education and Technology Trends has an evaluation format for referees, which includes all the criteria used for the evaluation of articles, considering their academic quality, relevance, rigor in the research and contributions to the field of study.

Reviewers commit to:

1. Making contributions to editorial decisions: Peer review provides the editor with crucial elements for making editorial decisions. In this sense, the Journal of Education and Technology Trends Editor is an important link between the reviewer and the author because this dialogue allows the document to be improved in terms of form and quality of presentation.
2. Relevance and qualification: When a referee is called to evaluate an article and does not feel qualified to review the document, he or she must communicate this situation to the Editor.
3. Confidentiality: The Journal of Education and Technology Trends states that all documents received for evaluation must be kept confidential. They should not be presented, reviewed, discussed or analyzed with third parties, except with the authorization of the Editor.
4. Rules of objectivity: The comments, observations, criticisms and corrections of the referees must be made objectively. Criticism, comment, or personal correction of the author is inconvenient. In this sense, the arbitrators must express their opinions clearly and, in any case, supported by arguments derived from their knowledge on the subject.
5. Adequate recognition of sources: peer reviewers may recommend to authors the inclusion of citations or bibliographic references that they consider relevant to the evaluated document and that have not been cited by the authors. Any statement, observation, derivation or argument that has been previously published must be duly cited. A referee may also contact the editor if he or she suspects that the manuscript under review has any substantial or partial approximation to any other published document that he or she has personal knowledge of.
6. Declaration of conflicts of interest: The original and unpublished elements included in an article received by the referees, without the consent of the author, as well as all types of information, ideas, images, and graphics, among others, derived from peer review, are confidential and therefore will not be used in a privileged way for the personal benefit of the peer reviewers. In addition, arbitrators must also declare their impediment in case of a conflict of interest.

All complaints will be received in writing, by mail through the OJS portal: link or institutional mail.