Reviewer Guidelines

In this section, reviewers will find essential guidelines and instructions that will enable them to evaluate authors' manuscripts. These guidelines delineate the criteria and key standards that must be applied when exhaustively reviewing an article, ensuring a fair and cohesive evaluation of the submitted works and contributing to the quality and credibility of the peer review process.

• 
• 
• 

 

Instructions for reviewing on OJS

• 

 

Ethics

The Bolivian Journal of Education will ensure that the editorial team and the reviewers, as well as the authors, follow the required ethical guidelines during the publication process. To achieve this, it relies on the following international standards: the Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors and the International Standards for Editors and Authors established by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

Reviewers' commitements

• Participation in editorial decision-making: Peer review plays a fundamental role in supporting editors in making decisions regarding proposed articles. It also provides authors with the opportunity to improve the quality of their work before possible publication. Reviewers commit to conducting critical, honest, and constructive evaluations, free of preferences, both in terms of scientific merit and writing quality, based on their expertise and competence.
• Adherence to review deadlines: If a reviewer feels they do not have the necessary expertise to assess the topic or cannot meet the established review period, they must notify the editors immediately. Reviewers commit to completing reviews as quickly as possible, ensuring compliance with submission deadlines. In REBE, strict restrictions are required on the retention of pending manuscripts, in consideration of authors and their work.
• Confidentiality: Each manuscript assigned to reviewers must be handled with complete confidentiality. Consequently, reviewers should not share the content with outsiders without the explicit authorization of the editors.
• Impartiality and objectivity: Reviewers must evaluate manuscripts impartially and objectively, based on scientific and academic merit. They should not allow personal favoritisms or preconceived notions to influence their review.
• Recognition of missing references: Reviewers commit to precisely identifying bibliographic citations of relevant works that the author may have omitted. Additionally, they must notify the editors if they find similarities or correspondences between the manuscript under review and other previously published works.
• Anonymity: To ensure impartiality, objectivity, and transparency in the review process, the anonymity of authors is preserved before their works are sent for peer review. If, at any point, the identity of the authors, their institutional affiliations, or any other information that could reveal their identity and compromise the confidentiality of the document are known, the reviewer must inform the editors immediately.
• Plagiarism: If a reviewer is concerned about the possible substantial reproduction of an article concerning previous works, they should inform the editors and provide a detailed reference to the prior work wherever possible. The journal commands the use of plagiarism and self-plagiarism detection systems, such as Turnitin, by both reviewers and editors.
• Fraud: If any uncertainty arises, whether significant or minimal, regarding the authenticity or precision of the results presented in an article, it is essential to inform the editors about it.