Editorial Process

Documented pathway from assessment to publication

The process covers receipt through preservation and post-publication correction. Each transition requires a responsible person, identifiable version, and recorded decision. The workflow applies equally to external authors and journal members, with recusal where conflicts exist.

OJS is the primary record. Communications outside the system affecting a decision are added to the file. Technical support may not alter reports or scientific decisions.

Workflow

Submission through OJS and document check.

Scope, relevance to higher education, and formal screening.

Similarity and ethical integrity checks.

Assignment to an editor and selection of external reviewers.

Double-anonymous review and first decision.

Author revision and response verification.

Final decision by the responsible editor.

Copyediting, technical editing, layout, and author proof.

DOI assignment, continuous publication, and digital preservation.

Traceability

Communications, reports, versions, and decisions are recorded in OJS. Timelines are estimates and may vary with complexity, reviewer availability, and the number of rounds.

Independence

Scientific decisions belong to the editor-in-chief or designated editor. Technical support from the co-publisher does not alter content or review outcomes.

Receipt and initial assessment

OJS records the date, files, and declarations. Technical staff check document completeness and anonymization; the editor then assesses scope, relevance to higher education, apparent originality, minimum quality, and ethics. Initial assessment takes approximately 7 to 15 calendar days. A manuscript may be returned, desk rejected, or advanced to peer review.

Technical return is neither acceptance nor scientific review. Processing begins only when required documents are complete. Initial rejections state the principal reason, especially when a study lacks a higher education research problem or contribution.

Peer review and revision

Eligible work is normally assigned to two external reviewers under double-anonymous review. External review and first decision take approximately 20 to 45 calendar days from acceptance of invitations, although specialist topics or reviewer replacement may extend the period. Substantial disagreement may be addressed through clarification, additional assessment, or a third reviewer.

When changes are requested, the author has a maximum of 15 calendar days from the OJS notice unless the letter states another deadline. A revised manuscript and point-by-point response are required. An extension must be requested before expiry; no response may lead to administrative closure.

Decision and production

The editor integrates reports and decides to accept, request minor changes, request major changes, reject and invite a new submission, or reject. Acceptance is communicated only after scientific, ethical, and documentary matters are resolved. Reports inform the outcome, but the editor remains responsible for the decision.

After acceptance, copyediting, normalization, layout, and proofs take approximately 10 to 20 calendar days. Authors correct production errors and may not introduce substantive changes without authorization. Publication activates the DOI, metadata, license, and preservation.

Control and improvement

Each stage records responsible persons, dates, versions, communications, and decisions. The editorial team monitors timelines, acceptance, reviewer performance, corrections, and schedule compliance to identify delays and quality risks.

Timelines are operational targets, not automatic guarantees. Speed never justifies omitting peer review, consent, data, conflict, or integrity checks. Delays are communicated to the corresponding author and documented in OJS.

Editorial stages in OJS

Register the submission, metadata, and documents.

Complete technical checks and editorial assessment in 7 to 15 days.

Apply similarity and ethics checks before peer review.

Normally invite two external reviewers under double-anonymous review.

Issue a first decision in approximately 20 to 45 days from review acceptance.

Receive author corrections within a maximum of 15 days or an expressly stated period.

Issue a reasoned final decision and complete production in 10 to 20 days.

Assign the DOI, publish metadata, activate preservation, and manage later corrections.

Traceability of versions and decisions

OJS history of dates, users, versions, and decisions.

Reports, author response, and decision letter.

Production checklist and approved proof.

DOI, license, formats, and preservation records.

Aggregate indicators of times and delays.

Decision checkpoints in OJS

Each submission file shall distinguish administrative validation from academic judgment. The former shall record files, statements, anonymization, and technical alerts; the latter shall document scope fit, independent reviewer selection, appraisal of reports, and the rationale for the decision. When revisions are requested, versions and point-by-point responses shall be retained.

Review of editorial workflow incidents

The editorial team periodically analyzes time by stage, failed invitations, rounds, withdrawals, and delays. Speed targets never authorize omitted checks. When a stage exceeds its target, the author receives information and the incident is recorded for improvement.

Platform checkpoints and editorial accountability

Eligibility screening and scientific peer review are distinct stages. Editorial staff record file completeness; the academic editor documents fit with one of the seven areas and appoints reviewers; reviewers assess scholarly contribution; and the assigned academic editor decides. Technical production begins only after recorded acceptance. Author corrections must not be used to alter genuine receipt, acceptance or publication dates.

Pre-publication checks cover identifiers, complete authorship and affiliations, Spanish and English titles and abstracts, actual publication date, CC BY 4.0 license, required statements, data links and assignment to the proper semiannual issue. Deviations are recorded as incidents, not resolved by inventing dates or indexing claims.

Controls at workflow transitions

Moving from screening to peer review requires an anonymized file, demonstrated scope relevance and complete disclosures. Moving from review to acceptance requires competent reports, a reasoned treatment of objections, conflict checks and resolution of material ethics concerns. Moving from production to publication requires approved proofs, matching bilingual metadata, a prepared DOI, visible rights and licenses and checked supplementary materials.

Decision records and communications

Each scholarly decision identifies the handling editor, date, outcome and substantive reasons. Communications affecting the submission are recorded in OJS; material exchanges conducted by email are documented in the file. The co-publisher may return a technically defective file for production correction but cannot reverse or alter a scholarly decision.