Step 1. Preliminary verification

Responsible person: Editor-in-Chief.

Communications: the editor will inform the corresponding author whether the manuscript proceeds to peer review, requires preliminary modifications, or is rejected for failing to meet editorial, formal, or ethical criteria.

Indicative timeframe: two weeks from receipt of the manuscript.

At this stage, the following elements are reviewed:

1. Relevance of the manuscript to the thematic, methodological, and disciplinary scope of the journal.
2. Complete, verifiable, and consistent information on authorship, institutional affiliation, ORCID, email address, and submission metadata.
3. Compliance with author guidelines, submission format, manuscript structure, and use of the journal’s official template.
4. Quality, currency, sufficiency, and international scope of the bibliography, with preference for recognized academic sources, indexed articles, and DOI links when available.
5. Verification of originality, unpublished status of the manuscript, and absence of simultaneous evaluation by another journal or publisher.
6. Compliance with good practices in scientific publishing and editorial ethics, according to references such as COPE, Singapore Statement on Research Integrity, and Elsevier Publishing Ethics Resource Kit.
7. Identification of possible evidence of plagiarism, citation manipulation, data fabrication or falsification, undeclared use of artificial intelligence, or other academic irregularities.
8. Compliance with minimum standards of style, academic writing, spelling, punctuation, and argumentative clarity.
9. Submission of the required annexes, including the Article Submission Letter, ethical approval when applicable, and any other documents required by the journal.

Manuscripts showing evidence of plagiarism, data falsification, false information on authorship or affiliation, reference manipulation, undeclared or inappropriate use of artificial intelligence, or any other serious breach of research and publication ethics will be rejected immediately.

Manuscripts with correctable formal or editorial observations may submit a revised version within a maximum period of four weeks. Manuscripts that do not include the mandatory documentation may not proceed to peer review until those requirements are completed.

Given the thematic diversity of education and its interdisciplinary intersections, the Editor-in-Chief may request support from the editorial coordinator, section editors, or scientific board for the preliminary review.

Online tracking: once the manuscript is accepted to begin peer review, its status in the OJS platform will change from “assignment pending” to “under review.” Authors may track the process through the platform. Any inquiry must include the submission identification code.

Step 2. Peer review

Responsible parties: Editor-in-Chief, section editors, or assistant editor, as applicable.

Indicative timeframe: approximately four weeks, depending on the availability of selected reviewers and the complexity of the manuscript.

Peer review consists of an academic evaluation conducted by specialists external to the editorial team. Ecos de la Academia applies a double-blind review model, so neither authors nor reviewers know each other’s identities during the process. At least two reviewers are assigned to each manuscript.

Selected reviewers will receive a formal invitation through the OJS platform or institutional email. If they accept, they will have access to the anonymized manuscript, the evaluation form, and, where applicable, the open science objects associated with the study.

The evaluation considers thematic relevance, title, abstract, keywords, introduction, methodology, argumentation, results, discussion, conclusions, quality of sources, contribution to the field, data transparency, and compliance with ethical criteria.

The possible reviewer recommendations are:

• Publishable without changes: the manuscript meets the editorial and academic criteria of the journal.
• Publishable with minor changes: the manuscript requires specific adjustments that can be addressed without a full new round of peer review.
• Publishable with major changes: the manuscript requires substantial modifications and may be sent for a new round of peer review or editorial verification.
• Not publishable: the manuscript does not meet the journal’s criteria of originality, relevance, methodological rigor, academic quality, or scientific contribution.

In the event of significant discrepancy between review reports, the Editor-in-Chief, with support from the editorial board when necessary, may request a third review or make a duly justified editorial decision.

Reviewers must act with confidentiality, objectivity, punctuality, proper source acknowledgement, and disclosure of conflicts of interest. They are encouraged to follow the COPE ethical guidelines for peer reviewers.

The journal may issue certificates of participation to reviewers who have completed the evaluation process in a timely manner.

Step 3. Editorial decision

Responsible parties: Editor-in-Chief and editorial board.

Communications: the corresponding author will receive the editorial decision, accompanied by the comments, observations, or recommendations issued during the evaluation process.

Indicative timeframe: once at least two review reports have been received, the Editor-in-Chief will seek to communicate the decision within approximately two weeks.

The Editor-in-Chief may accept the manuscript, reject it, or request additional revisions. If the editorial decision differs substantially from the reviewers’ recommendations, it must be duly justified.

When a conflict of interest exists, the editor involved will be excluded from the decision, and the case will be reassigned to another member of the editorial team or editorial board.

Step 4. Manuscript revisions by authors

Responsible parties: manuscript authors.

Authors must address editorial and review observations within the established deadlines:

• Minor changes: maximum period of one week.
• Major changes: maximum period of two weeks, unless the editorial team establishes a different deadline depending on the complexity of the revisions.

If authors decide not to incorporate any observation, they must justify this in writing in a response letter. The Editor-in-Chief will assess the relevance of the justification and may request additional adjustments, send the manuscript for further review, or issue a final decision.

Once the revised version has been received, the editorial team will verify compliance with the observations, document completeness, formal quality of the manuscript, and absence of originality problems.

Step 5. Layout, approval, and publication

Responsible parties: publications team, editorial coordination, designer or layout editor, and authors.

Indicative timeframe: twenty days for layout, review, technical validation, and publication.

• Authors must respond to editorial or technical queries within the deadlines requested by the publications team.
• The designer or layout editor will make the necessary adjustments to layout, style, tables, figures, formulas, citations, and graphic elements for the final version.
• Editorial coordination will verify the final version, metadata, DOI, pagination, or corresponding identifiers before online publication.

The publications team will inform authors of technical, editorial, or administrative changes made during this stage. Final publication will take place once the corresponding editorial and technical checks have been completed.

Step 6. Correction and retraction

Responsible parties: publications team, editorial board, authors, readers, and relevant institutional authorities.

If a reader, author, reviewer, or member of the academic community identifies a relevant error or possible ethical issue in a published article, they may contact the journal so that the corresponding review can be initiated.

Once the existence of an error or ethical issue has been confirmed, the journal will apply the corresponding editorial measure: correction, expression of concern, or retraction, depending on the nature and seriousness of the case. This process will consider institutional protocols and the recommendations of COPE, Singapore Statement on Research Integrity, and Elsevier Publishing Ethics Resource Kit.

Corrections of relevant errors will be published visibly and linked to the original article. Minor errors that do not affect the understanding, interpretation, or validity of the work may be corrected in the online version, leaving an editorial record where appropriate.

Retractions will be applied when there are serious errors, evidence of scientific misconduct, plagiarism, data fabrication or falsification, redundant publication, undeclared ethical conflicts, or other situations that substantially invalidate the published content.

Step 7. Post-publication community oversight

The editorial team will take reasonable measures to identify and prevent misconduct such as plagiarism, incorrect citation, reference manipulation, data falsification, redundant publication, or undeclared conflicts of interest. If possible misconduct is detected after publication, the case will be evaluated according to the applicable ethical protocol and the corresponding corrective measures will be adopted.

Readers, authors, and members of the academic community are invited to report possible editorial or research misconduct to the editor’s email address: smguevara@utn.edu.ec. The journal will review the communication received, request clarification from the parties involved where appropriate, and issue a reasoned editorial decision. Decisions may be appealed before the editorial board of Ecos de la Academia.