Review Guidelines

It is important for authors to be aware of the criteria that reviewers will use during the evaluation process. The editors have agreed to evaluate submissions based on the following guidelines:

• Relevance of the topic: Is the topic of the article relevant? Will it clearly contribute to improving chemical education in the region? Does the article explain how it will achieve this goal?
• Objective of the work: Is the objective of the work clearly expressed? Is the question it attempts to answer or the objective it aims to develop significant and well-justified?
• Development of the article: Is the development of the article appropriate? Is it easy to follow? Is each step taken justified? Is it properly illustrated? Is the argumentation solid and conclusive?
• Research (if applicable): If it is a field research study, either qualitative or quantitative, is the theoretical framework and methodology identified? Is the sample defined appropriately, with statistical validity, and are the techniques and analysis method suitable?
• Conclusions: Are the conclusions rigorous, pertinent, and original? Do they strictly derive from what was presented in the article’s development? Are the conclusions predictable from the outset, or do they bring innovations?
• Writing and language correctness: Is the writing and language usage appropriate? Which parts of the text should be improved?
• Bibliography: Is the cited bibliography relevant? Is it sufficiently extensive? Does it cover the main prior contributions in the field? Does it include references to Ibero-American journals?

Based on these criteria, reviewers will recommend one of the following options:

1. Acceptance of the article.
2. Conditional acceptance with minor changes.
3. Conditional acceptance with major changes.
4. Rejection of the article, with a suggestion to resubmit it for evaluation in the next six months.
5. Definitive rejection of the article.

In the cases of conditional acceptance (options 2 and 3), the specific issues that need to be corrected, removed, or added will be clearly indicated. In the case of rejection with a suggestion for resubmission (option 4), the reviewer will provide a justification based on non-compliance with one of the established criteria. Any discrepancies between reviewers will be resolved by the editorial committee.

Note: Selected and published works will be the property of the journal unless the corresponding author submits a written request to withdraw the article from publication.