Editors and reviewers will adhere to and enforce the ethical standards of Innovare, remaining active in the article process and continuously improving the quality, ethical integrity, and impact of the journal. They are also committed to following the standard peer review processes and the journal's related guidelines. Decisions on the acceptance or rejection of articles will be based purely on scientific merit, achieved through a confidential double-blind review process (neither authors nor reviewers will know each other's identities). 

Reviewers must not evaluate articles in which they have conflicts of interest. The general guidelines that reviewers and editors should follow can be read on the Committee for Publication Ethics (COPE) website: https://publicationethics.org/guidance?classification=2779.

Peer review should be specific. This means that the reviewer should include observations within the article, using the comments section in Word and doing so anonymously. Another important aspect is that the reviewer should include recommendations on whether the article can be published in the journal. Below are questions that reviewers can check to ensure an appropriate review. 

Checklist for Reviewing an Article 

1. The article is original, new, and important for the research topic. 
2. The article contains aspects of technology and innovation according to the specific topic. 
3. The structure used is appropriate, and the article is well written in Spanish and English. 
4. The article has the appropriate word length for the type of article expected. 
5. The title adequately reflects the content of the article and is written in an interesting way. 
6. The article contains all the necessary components for its publication, such as author contributions and conflicts of interest. 

Abstract 

7. The abstract includes all the necessary components of a structured abstract. 
8. The abstract presents the key findings of the research. 

Introduction 

9. The introduction is effective, clear, and well-organized. 
10. The introduction presents the topic and sets the context for the rest of the article. 
11. The section has the necessary references that support the ideas presented. 

Methods 

12. The methods are described well enough to be reproducible and obtain similar results. 
13. Appropriate references to the methodologies and software used are included. 
14. The description of the new methodology is accurate and truthful. 

Results, Analysis, and Discussion 

15. An interpretation of the results is included. 
16. New analyses can be suggested to improve the article. 
17. The analysis and discussion section compares the findings with the results of other studies conducted in Honduras and other contexts. 

Conclusion 

18. The conclusion is valid and consistent with the results obtained. 
19. The conclusion does not seem to be a summary of the research. 

References, Tables, Figures, and Images 

20. The references are accurate and truthful. 
21. The article has the appropriate number of references according to its type. 
22. The article includes the appropriate number of tables and figures according to its type. 
23. The tables, figures, and images have an adequate quality in terms of resolution and presentation. 
24. The colors used in the figures are appropriate. 
25. The legends and footnotes are appropriate. 

To access the reviewer guidelines, please consult the relevant section within Innovare's Open Journal Systems (https://revistas.unitec.edu/index.php/innovare), or contact the Editor-in-Chief at innovare@unitec.edu.  

References of Interest 

Elsevier. (2015). How to review manuscripts – your ultimate checklist. https://www.elsevier.com/connect/how-to-review-manuscripts-your-ultimate-checklist