Brief Overview of the Article Selection Process

Revista Boliviana de Educación (REBE) employs a double-blind peer-review process for all manuscripts.

All submissions undergo a preliminary screening by the Revista Boliviana de Educación (REBE) Editorial Team to ensure alignment with the journal's objectives and scope. Authors will be notified of the initial decision within two weeks of receipt.

If the manuscript meets the submission guidelines and falls within the journal's scope, the editors will send it to at least two independent international reviewers. Review criteria focus on content quality, relevance, scientific merit, topical interest, methodological rigor, and the use of up-to-date primary and secondary sources. The peer-review system is anonymous. Reviewers are encouraged to follow the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers, available at www.publicationethics.org.

The final decision to accept or reject a manuscript rests with the Editorial Team. Typically, decisions are communicated within six weeks of the initial submission.

 

Summary of the Peer Review Process

  1. Preliminary Review: Authors—who must be previously registered on the journal's platform (https://revistarebe.org/index.php/rebe/user/register)—initiate the process by submitting their manuscript via the OJS platform of Bolivian Education Magazine (REBE). At this stage, the Editor, in collaboration with the Editorial Committee, conducts a preliminary screening to evaluate:
  2. Content quality, relevance to the discipline, scientific merit, topical interest, methodological rigor, and the use of up-to-date bibliography and relevant legal material.
  3. Alignment with the journal's editorial line.
  4. Compliance with submission requirements.
  5. Initial plagiarism screening and AI-usage detection.

If criteria 2 and 3 are not met, authors are notified and allowed to make corrections. If plagiarism is detected, and depending on its complexity, the Editorial Committee will inform the authors of either a rejection or the possibility of correction. If all criteria are met, the manuscript proceeds to the peer review process.

  1. Peer Review Process: The Editor-in-Chief, in collaboration with the Editorial Committee, requests the collaboration of peer reviewers based on the following criteria:
  2. The reviewer must have an academic background, a researcher profile, and publications in the corresponding field of knowledge.
  3. The reviewer must have no conflicts of interest that could affect the evaluation process.

Reviewers use an online form or a Word document for their evaluation and are encouraged to include comments or provide an anonymous, marked-up copy of the manuscript.

The evaluation options are:

  1. Rejected: The manuscript does not meet the criteria for relevance, originality, or quality.
  2. Major Revisions: The article may be accepted following a second round of the peer review process.
  3. Minor Revisions: The Editorial Committee requests specific changes. If these changes are implemented, the article is accepted.
  4. Accepted: The article is ready for publication.

When the Committee deems it necessary, a third reviewer is consulted, whose criteria will be considered for the final decision.

  1. Approval or Rejection: The final publication decision rests with the Editorial Committee and requires full compliance with style guidelines and anti-plagiarism screenings.

Authors of articles approved with modifications or approved for publication agree to implement content, formatting, and style corrections within five business days of the request.

 

Detailed Description of the Article Selection Process

Step 1. Preliminary Screening

Responsible Party: Editor-in-Chief

Outcome: The Editor notifies the author via email regarding the decision to accept the article for the peer review process, request modifications, or reject the submission.

Timeline: 2 weeks

The following elements are evaluated during the preliminary screening stage:

  1. Alignment with the journal’s scope, themes, and methodology.
  2. Completeness and reliability of authorship, affiliation, and metadata.
  3. Compliance with journal criteria (see Author Guidelines).
  4. Bibliography quality: appropriate length, international reach, up-to-date sources, and a significant ratio of Scopus or WoS-indexed citations with corresponding DOIs.
  5. Confirmation that the article has not been previously published.
  6. Adherence to scientific publishing best practices and ethical standards described by COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics), the Singapore Statement on Research Integrity, and Elsevier’s Publishing Ethics Resource Kit (PERK).
  7. Evidence of plagiarism or extensive AI use in the manuscript.
  8. Compliance with minimum standards for style, spelling, and punctuation.
  9. Inclusion of required annexes, including the Article Submission Letter.

Manuscripts showing evidence of plagiarism, false author information, or any other ethical violations will be rejected immediately.

Submissions that fail to meet other criteria (unrelated to ethics or plagiarism) will be given a specific timeframe to submit a revised version. Manuscripts lacking required documentation will not proceed to the review process until all requirements are met.

Given the diversity of emerging technology topics, the Editor-in-Chief may request assistance from the Editorial Coordinator and the Scientific Committee during the initial review.

Online Tracking: Once an article is accepted for the peer review process, its status on the journal platform will change from “Awaiting Assignment” to “In Review.” Authors can track progress through the “Review” tab.

The submission platform assigns a unique identifier to each article. Please include this assigned code in the subject line of all inquiries or emails.

Step 2: Peer Review Process

Responsible Parties: Editor-in-Chief, Assistant Editor.
Timeline: Approximately 4 to 6 weeks, depending on reviewer availability.

At Revista Boliviana de Educación (REBE), the peer review process consists of an evaluation by independent experts (reviewers who are not part of the journal's Editorial Team). This is a double-blind process, meaning the identities of both authors and reviewers remain confidential. At least two reviewers are assigned to each manuscript to ensure confidentiality and objectivity.

Selected peer reviewers receive an invitation from the Editor-in-Chief or Assistant Editor, which they may accept or decline. Upon acceptance, reviewers gain access to the full anonymous text and an online evaluation form. The process is conducted via the journal's OJS (Open Journal System) platform or through official institutional email.

In addition to the subject matter and field of knowledge, the evaluation covers: title clarity, abstract structure and content, keyword selection, introduction, methodology, argumentative depth, results, discussion, conclusions, general impact, and contributions to the field.

Reviewers provide general comments and recommendations to improve the text and issue one of the following verdicts:

  • Publishable without changes: The manuscript meets all requirements and can be published as is.
  • Publishable with minor changes: The article requires minor, easily correctable revisions.
  • Publishable with major changes: The article requires substantial revisions. The new version must be resubmitted for a second round of evaluation by reviewers or the Editorial Committee.
  • Not publishable (Rejected): The article is not suitable for publication and does not contribute significantly to its scientific field.

In the event of conflicting reviewer recommendations, the Editor-in-Chief (assisted by the Editorial Committee if necessary) will make the final decision. The Editor-in-Chief will issue a reviewer certificate via email within the month following the evaluation.

The Editor-in-Chief will issue a reviewer certificate for the specific issue, sent via email within the month following the evaluation.

Reviewers are encouraged to share suggestions regarding review indicators, ethical aspects, or general recommendations with the Editor-in-Chief via the journal's official email.

Reviewers must adhere to COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) guidelines. Their responsibilities include contributing to the publication decision, maintaining punctuality and confidentiality, ensuring objectivity, acknowledging sources, and disclosing any conflicts of interest.

Step 3: Editor’s Decision

Responsible Parties: Editor-in-Chief, Editorial Committee.
Timeline: The Editor-in-Chief will communicate the decision to the author within two weeks of receiving at least two reviewer reports.

The Editor-in-Chief may accept (publishable), reject (not publishable), or request further revisions (minor or major changes). Any decision contrary to the peer reviewers' recommendations must be justified.

The decision to publish may be delegated to Guest Editors when applicable. Any editor with a conflict of interest will be excluded from the decision-making process.

Authors will receive an email with the editor's decision, including a summary of reviewer comments and a deadline for submitting revisions.

Online Tracking: The editor's decision will be reflected as a status change on the web platform. If the decision is “not publishable,” the article is immediately removed from the review process, and details can be found in the “Archive” section.

Step 4: Manuscript Revisions

Responsible Parties: Authors.
Timeline: Once the decision is issued, authors have the following deadlines to review comments and submit revisions and required documentation:

  • Maximum of 1 week for “Publishable with minor changes.”
  • Maximum of 2 weeks for “Publishable with major changes.”

Publishable:
An article is deemed “publishable” when:

  1. Reviewer feedback is positive, and the article is accepted without further comments.
  2. The article required minor changes, which were implemented and successfully cleared the second review round.
  3. The article required major changes, which were implemented and successfully cleared the second review round.

Upon receipt of the final version, a final plagiarism check is conducted, and all required documentation is verified.

Online Tracking: Once marked as “publishable,” the article status changes to “In Editing.” Authors can monitor progress in the “Editing” tab.

Publishable with minor changes:
In this case, the article requires only minor, easily correctable revisions. Authors must address all reviewer suggestions within the established deadline. If an author chooses not to adopt a recommendation, they must provide a written justification; the editor reserves the right to make the final decision. Once revisions are received, the Editor-in-Chief may issue a “publishable” decision or request further clarifications.

Publishable with major changes:
Upon receiving the revised manuscript, the Editor-in-Chief may issue a “publishable” decision if all corrections were appropriately addressed, or a “not publishable” decision if the article still fails to meet reviewer criteria.

Step 5: Layout, Approval, and Publication

Responsible Parties: Authors, Publication Coordinator, Designer.
Timeline: 20 days for layout and proofing.

  • 3 business days for authors to address queries arising during the review process.
  • 3 business days for the designer to implement required changes.
  • 3 business days for the Publication Coordinator to publish the final version online.

Accepted articles are sent to an assigned designer for proofing and layout. Through the Publication Coordinator, the designer may contact authors regarding style, context, or the placement of figures and tables (technical terminology, coherence, formulas, symbols, missing sources, or citations).

Authors have five days to respond to and address all designer requests.

The final layout will include the DOI and assigned page numbers (Publication Coordinator).

The publication team will inform the author of any technical or administrative changes within the set deadlines.

Step 6: Corrections and Retractions

Responsible Parties: Publication Team, Editorial Committee, Authors, Readers, and Institutional Authorities.
Timeline: One week to initiate the protocol upon notification of an issue.
Documentation: Meeting minutes, institutional protocols, and ethical guidelines from COPE, the Singapore Statement on Research Integrity, and Elsevier’s Publishing Ethics Resource Kit (PERK).

Revista Boliviana de Educación (REBE) is an open-access publication, meaning all text is freely available for public viewing and verification. Readers may send inquiries, comments, or suggestions to the journal’s email address.

If you identify a demonstrable error or ethical issue, please contact us to initiate an investigation and take immediate action. If confirmed, the corresponding correction or retraction process will begin.

Once an article is published, significant corrections will be published separately as a retraction or correction notice at the end of each journal issue.

Minor errors that do not affect the understanding of the work will be corrected in the online versions within 15 days of publication.

Retractions are published when authors, readers, or editors identify significant errors. These may be unintentional or the result of scientific misconduct.

Editors will examine the document and consult with authors and relevant editorial bodies before making a final retraction decision. This process follows institutional protocols and recommendations from COPE, the Singapore Statement, and Elsevier to identify alleged malpractice or misconduct.

Upon accepting an invitation to evaluate an article, reviewers must declare they have no conflicts of interest and agree to the journal's ethical standards regarding confidentiality and plagiarism, as published on the website.

Step 7: Publication Ethics and Social Oversight

The Editorial Team takes all reasonable measures to identify and prevent the publication of manuscripts involving malpractice, such as plagiarism, incorrect citation, or data falsification. If malpractice is found, the manuscript will be rejected immediately. If discovered after publication, a retraction or correction will be issued.

Readers are invited to report potential plagiarism to the editor’s email. Once potential malpractice is identified, the editorial process for that manuscript is suspended. The deadline for submitting observations is ten business days. If there is no response, or after reviewing the author's explanations, the editor will make a final decision. The editor's decision may be appealed to the Journal's Editorial Committee (secretaria@revistarebe.org)