Peer review process

As a scientific journal of arbitrated quality, Sinéctica is committed to submit each proposed article to a strict evaluation process, in which each stage must be approved to go on to the next. Once the author has sent their article through this platform, they are subject to the following review policies: 

Pre-evaluation. The Pre-Evaluation Committee carries out a pre-evaluation to verify the information of the document and check that it is in accordance with the criteria and guidelines of the journal. 

Evaluation. In the case of being approved in the pre-evaluation, the article is sent for review to the Evaluation Committee based on the double-blind method, in which both the authors as well as the evaluators remain anonymous. 

The result of each evaluation can be: 

  1. Accepted without changes 
  2. Accepted with changes
  3. Not accepted 

Decision of the Editorial Board. Is based on three evaluation scenarios: 

  1. If the article receives two failing evaluations, it is rejected and is sent to the author with the general opinion of the evaluation. 
  2. When the article receives an approving evaluation with changes and a failing evaluation, the author is notified that his/her document is conditioned for a new evaluation, if the changes noted in the evaluation report sent are made and it complies with the submission deadline. 
  3. If the article is approved by both evaluators, the author receives the evaluation report with the recommendations of its reviewers; the author must address them and send the modified text by the noted deadline to proceed with the publishing process. 

The Editorial Board is the organism that has the final decision, which cannot be appealed, on the publication of an article that has been evaluated and modified by the author. 

It is important to consider that Sinéctica: 

  1. Always preserves the anonymity of the authors and arbitrators (double blind method). 
  2. Sinéctica has an Evaluation Committee comprised by a broad range of specialists in the educational field, both at a national and international levels. 
  3. Establishes five months as a maximum period to provide an evaluation report. 
  4. Does not commit to the publishing of all the collaborations received. 
  5. Does not offer any sort of financial compensation.