Guidelines for Reviewers under the Double-Blind Peer Review Modality

Revista CoPaLa. Construyendo Paz Latinoamericana appreciates the academic collaboration of the reviewers who participate in the assessment process of submitted manuscripts. Their work is essential to ensure the scientific quality, thematic relevance, editorial integrity, and academic and social contribution of the works published by the journal.

The journal evaluates manuscripts through academic peer review under a double-blind modality. This means that authors do not know the identity of those who review their work, and reviewers do not know the identity of the authors. This procedure seeks to preserve the impartiality, objectivity and transparency of the editorial process.

Reviewers must evaluate assigned manuscripts with objectivity, confidentiality, impartiality, academic respect and sufficient argumentation. Their observations should contribute to strengthening the manuscript and guide the editorial team in decision-making.

---

1. Review Process

Revista CoPaLa conducts a peer review process known as the assessment process. In this process, manuscripts that meet the initial editorial review requirements are sent to two reviewers who are specialists in the corresponding thematic area.

Reviewers evaluate the manuscript individually, anonymously and confidentially, using the evaluation form established by the journal in the OJS platform.

To determine the publication of a manuscript, sufficiently substantiated academic reviews are required. In the event of a substantive discrepancy between the evaluations received, the manuscript may be sent to a third reviewer.

The final editorial decision will correspond to the editorial team, considering the reviews received, the relevance of the manuscript, the quality of the corrections and compliance with the editorial guidelines.

The possible outcomes of the review process are:

• Publish without changes.
• Publish with minor modifications.
• Publish with major modifications.
• Do not publish.

The editorial decision will be communicated to the authors through the OJS platform or the journal’s official email.

2. Profile and Responsibility of Reviewers

Reviewers are specialists in the topic addressed by the manuscript and have academic, research or professional experience in fields related to the social sciences, education, peace studies, human rights, interculturality, coexistence, conflict transformation, critical pedagogies or other areas related to the focus of Revista CoPaLa.

Their function is to assess the academic quality of the manuscript, its originality, theoretical soundness, methodological coherence, argumentative clarity, relevance of the sources, contribution to the field of knowledge and compliance with the journal’s editorial guidelines.

Peer review is an honorary academic activity. Revista CoPaLa does not charge authors any fees for submission, processing, review, editing or publication; therefore, the participation of reviewers is recognized as a supportive contribution to strengthening scientific and humanistic communication under a non-commercial open access model.

3. Principles of Review

Reviewers must observe the following principles:

4. Conflict of Interest

Reviewers must inform the editorial team if they identify any conflict of interest that may affect their impartiality.

The following are considered possible conflicts of interest:

• Academic, institutional, labor, personal or professional relationship with the authors, when they can be identified.
• Previous or current participation in the research project under evaluation.
• Direct competition with the research line, project or results of the manuscript.
• Personal, academic, economic, institutional or professional benefit derived from the acceptance or rejection of the manuscript.
• Any circumstance that may affect, or appear to affect, the independence of the review.

If reviewers consider that there is a conflict of interest, they must excuse themselves from carrying out the evaluation. In case of doubt, they must inform the editorial team so that it can determine whether the review should proceed.

5. Confidentiality and Use of Artificial Intelligence

Manuscripts submitted for review are unpublished and confidential documents. Therefore, reviewers must not enter, upload, copy, transcribe or process, either totally or partially, manuscripts, tables, images, data, appendices or text fragments into external generative artificial intelligence platforms, automatic translation services, online proofreaders, summarization programs, textual analysis tools or any other system that involves storage, processing, training, reuse or transfer of information outside the editorial environment authorized by the journal.

This restriction applies to tools such as chatbots, writing assistants, text generation systems, online automatic translators, language review platforms with external storage and similar services.

The review must be based exclusively on the specialized academic analysis of the reviewer. The use of artificial intelligence cannot replace academic judgment, ethical responsibility or the confidentiality of the evaluation process.

If technical support is required for reading, accessibility or format review, the reviewer must consult the editorial team beforehand.

6. Substitution or Delegation of the Review

Reviewers may not transfer, delegate or share the manuscript with students, colleagues, research assistants, members of academic groups or other persons.

The invitation to review is made personally, based on the reviewer’s background, experience and thematic competence. Any inability to carry out the evaluation must be communicated to the editorial team, which will determine whether the manuscript should be assigned to another specialist.

7. Review Deadlines

Reviewers must accept or decline the invitation within the period indicated by the journal.

Once the review has been accepted, the report must be submitted within the period indicated in the OJS platform or in the corresponding editorial communication.

If, for academic, labor, personal or force majeure reasons, reviewers cannot complete the review within the established time, they must promptly inform the editorial team so that the process can be reorganized.

8. General Evaluation Criteria

The review must consider the following criteria:

9. Specific Elements to Be Assessed

Reviewers must consider, among others, the following aspects:

• The title is clear, precise and reflects the content of the manuscript.
• The abstract presents the objective, methodology or approach, results or findings, and conclusions.
• The keywords are relevant and support the thematic identification of the work.
• The introduction adequately presents the problem, objective, relevance and structure of the manuscript.
• The theoretical or conceptual framework is relevant, current and sufficient.
• The methodology, when applicable, is clearly explained and consistent with the objective of the study.
• The results or findings are presented clearly and in an organized manner.
• The discussion articulates the results with the field of knowledge.
• The conclusions derive from the development of the work.
• The bibliography is relevant, sufficient and updated.
• Citations and references comply with the current APA format.
• Tables, charts, graphs, images or appendices contribute to the understanding of the manuscript.
• The writing is clear, academic and coherent.
• The manuscript uses respectful, inclusive and non-discriminatory language.
• The work represents a contribution to the thematic fields of Revista CoPaLa.

10. Recommendations for Comments to Authors

Comments addressed to authors must be clear, respectful and useful for improving the manuscript.

It is recommended to:

• Point out the strengths of the work.
• Identify weaknesses with specific arguments.
• Distinguish between major and minor observations.
• Suggest concrete improvements.
• Avoid personal comments or disqualifications.
• Not include information that reveals the reviewer’s identity.
• Not request citation of one’s own works unless strictly necessary and academically justified.
• Not condition publication on changes unrelated to the academic content of the manuscript.

11. Decision on the Manuscript

Revista CoPaLa considers the following review categories:

12. Access to the Submission Review System

To access the submission review system, reviewers must be registered in the OJS platform of Revista CoPaLa with the corresponding role.

If reviewers already have a username and password, they must enter the journal’s official website and select the Log in option. Once inside their account, they will be able to view the active submissions assigned to their reviewer role.

If reviewers already have a registered user account as author, reader or another role, the editorial team may enable the reviewer role when they are invited to participate in a review.

If, upon entering the platform, the reviewer role does not appear or it is not possible to access the assigned manuscript, the reviewer must contact the editorial team through the journal’s official email: [email protected]

13. Access to the Review in OJS

Once inside the OJS platform of Revista CoPaLa, reviewers must enter their user area and select the corresponding submission.

The system will show the general details of the manuscript, the available files, the process dates and the review guidelines.

The general procedure includes the following stages:

1. Review request. Reviewers must accept or decline the invitation. Before accepting, they must verify that they have thematic competence, time availability and no conflict of interest.
2. Review of guidelines. Reviewers must read the evaluation guidelines, editorial policies and criteria established by the journal.
3. Manuscript download. Reviewers may download the assigned file from the OJS platform. The manuscript must be treated as a confidential document.
4. Academic review. Reviewers will carry out the evaluation according to the criteria established by Revista CoPaLa. They may prepare comments for the editorial team and comments for the authors.
5. Submission of the review report. Reviewers must complete the evaluation form in the OJS platform, justify their responses and select one of the review categories.
6. Sending the review. Once the evaluation is completed, reviewers must submit the report through the platform. After submitting it, they must not keep, share or use the manuscript or its contents.

14. CoPaLa Evaluation Form

Questionnaire for Reviewing Manuscripts

This questionnaire aims to promote a rigorous, objective and constructive academic review that supports the editorial team in decision-making and contributes to strengthening manuscripts submitted to Revista CoPaLa.

Instructions for the Reviewer

• Justify each answer with clear arguments.
• Propose concrete improvements when necessary.
• Use respectful, academic and constructive language.
• Assess the manuscript according to its quality, relevance, originality and contribution to the field.
• Do not include information that reveals your identity.
• Do not use the manuscript for purposes other than the evaluation process.

Suggested Rating Scale

1. Does not meet the criterion. The manuscript does not meet the criterion evaluated.
2. Deficient. It partially meets the criterion but presents important shortcomings that affect the quality of the manuscript.
3. Acceptable. It basically meets the criterion; the evaluated aspect is correct, although it requires improvement.
4. Good. It adequately meets the criterion; there are minor aspects to improve, but they do not compromise the overall quality.
5. Excellent. It fully meets the criterion; it is considered high quality and has no significant observations.

Section I. General Information

• Manuscript title:
• Review date:
• Thematic area:
• Journal section:

Section II. Relevance of the Topic

Section III. Reasoned Review

• Summary of the manuscript’s strengths:
• Aspects requiring improvement:
• Specific recommendations for the authors:
• Confidential comments for the editorial team, if any:

Section IV. Final Recommendation

Select one option:

• Publish without changes.
• Publish with minor modifications.
• Publish with major modifications.
• Do not publish.

Justification of the final recommendation:

15. Final Considerations

The participation of reviewers strengthens the scientific and humanistic quality of Revista CoPaLa. Their reviews contribute to consolidating a transparent, ethical and plural editorial process committed to non-commercial open access, peacebuilding and the democratization of knowledge.

Revista CoPaLa recognizes and appreciates the collaboration of those who participate in the review process, as their work helps sustain the journal’s academic integrity and improve the quality of the published works.