Peer evaluation process. Evaluation form.

1) Once the manuscript is received, which must be unpublished, it is sent to the attention of the Editorial Board, which will examine its content, ensuring its consistency with any of the topics of interest to Revista Tekhné, checking that it has the extension, the methodology and synderesis required. If these requirements are not met, the author or authors are warned about the situation, recommending the incorporation of a minimum of objectively detailed conditions or the impossibility of their admission.

2) If the required standards are met, the author or authors are notified of receipt of the manuscript, while it is sent to two referees under the “double-blind” modality for their expert opinion. They review in detail all aspects related to the form and substance of the work, indicating in the corresponding form the observations and qualifications they consider appropriate. Once the arbitration is concluded, the manuscript must be returned with the corresponding evaluation form to the editors.

3) The Editorial Board is responsible for acting with due reserve in relation to the protection of the identity of the referee and their respective evaluation.

4) The Editorial Board assumes the commitment to keep the name of the author or authors of the works submitted to the referees safe.

5) For the selection of an evaluating referee, it is necessary to consider his or her recognized authority as a specialist in the area, in addition to possessing prudence and discretion in the handling of the submitted documents.

6) The director of Revista Tekhné will give the experts, in addition to the work, a form that will collect their opinion and a copy of the rules for the presentation of collaborations.

7) Once the collaboration has been submitted to the corresponding arbitrators, a period of 30 days from receipt will be waited for their opinion; If at the end of this the requested response is not obtained, it will be sent again to arbitration with another expert designated by the Editorial Board.

8) The Editorial Board assumes the commitment to the referee that the collaboration will only be published if the author submits to the observations and suggestions made by the experts, serving as an intermediary for the purposes of making any clarifications it deems appropriate. In this case, the work must have the reliable endorsement of the qualified majority of the referees that the Editorial Board has appointed for the evaluation, otherwise it will be rejected.

9) There are four types of opinions that can result from arbitration: i) publishable; ii) publishable with minor modifications; iii) publishable with major modifications of form and content; and iv) not publishable.

10) In the first and second cases, the original manuscript, already refereed, is sent to the proofreader and editor to modify it according to the specifications required for its subsequent layout. In the third case, the work is returned to the author or authors, who must modify it in accordance with each and every one of the recommendations made by the referees. Once the corrections have been made, they must send the modified manuscript to the editors, who will ensure that it corresponds to the considerations included in the arbitration form. However, if there are discrepancies in the type of corrections, the Editorial Board will submit the work to a new arbitration and if approved, the author or authors will be notified of the publication of their collaboration. Finally, in the last case, the author(s) are informed about the result of the arbitration, indicating the reasons and arguments for its rejection.

11) When the refereed manuscript corresponds to assessments i) or ii), the author or authors receive from the director of the journal a formal acceptance letter which also indicates in which volume their manuscript will be published. Typically, this letter is sent via email and then a printed version, along with two copies of the magazine.

evaluation form.

Review Form

Please evaluate the manuscript according to the established scientific quality criteria. Your analysis should be objective and constructive, aimed at maintaining the journal's academic excellence. Justifying your final decision in the comments section is essential.