Guidelines for evaluators

Article Type and Structure

1. Articles will be classified as follows:

a. Research Articles: These must be highly original and innovative. They present the results of unpublished research, whether theoretical or experimental, qualitative or quantitative. The original aspects of the research must be clearly evident. The structure includes a title in Spanish and English, the name(s) of the author(s), email address of each author, institutional affiliation, ORCID ID, abstract, keywords, introduction (including statement of the topic or problem, objectives or purposes, justification or importance, and theoretical framework), methodology, results and discussion, conclusions, and references (only those used in the article's citation).

b. Review Articles: These describe and/or compile the most recent developments or published works on a given topic, always contributing an improvement, addition, or original perspective, which must also be explicitly highlighted. They are a theoretical synthesis of the teaching material and a current perspective on the topic addressed, highlighting, above all, its potential novel contribution. The structure includes the title in Spanish and English, the author's name(s), email address of each author, institutional affiliation, ORCID ID, abstract, keywords, introduction (presentation of the topic), development of the review, contributions generated by the review, conclusions, and references consulted (only those used in the article's citation).

Guidelines for Reviewers

The scientific journal "PROciencias" has a broad network of collaborators in more than a dozen countries who voluntarily act as reviewers of articles. The evaluation process is "blind peer review," meaning that the identity of the reviewers and authors will remain hidden throughout the review cycle to ensure a degree of independence.

The role of reviewer for the scientific journal "PROciencias" is conceived as an alliance of academic reciprocity, in which reviewers provide feedback on their colleagues' work and, in turn, expect that when they participate as authors, other professors will also contribute their recommendations to improve or enhance their proposals.

Some of the general criteria suggested for reviewing a document for the journal are the following:

What is the article's objective in terms of presenting and analyzing ideas and arguments?

What are its strengths and weaknesses?

Is the article still relevant or outdated?

What is the article's contribution to the field of study?

How valid are the ideas/arguments?

Are the ideas/arguments original?

Does the article clearly explain its ideas/arguments?

Does the article support its ideas/arguments with clear examples, data, or case studies? How valid is this support? Is it limited or representative? Is it current or outdated?
Would these ideas/arguments be relevant in the cultural context? (Country, city, institution)
Does the article consider other perspectives on the topic? Could it be of interest to an international readership?
What is the target audience—general or specific? (Teachers, students, or researchers)
What references or contributions could you recommend to the author to address or better resolve the identified shortcomings?