Reviewers

Reviewers

Editors and reviewers shall comply with and enforce LUMEN's ethical standards and shall remain active in the article process and in the constant improvement of the journal's quality, ethical integrity, and impact. They also undertake to comply with standard peer review processes and the journal's standards in this regard. Decisions on the acceptance or rejection of articles will depend purely on scientific merit, for which a confidential double-blind review of the articles will be carried out (neither authors nor reviewers will know each other's identity).

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

Peer review should be specific. This means that reviewers should incorporate their comments directly into the manuscript, using the comments section in Word and maintaining anonymity. Reviewers should also include recommendations regarding the possibility of publishing the article in the journal. Below are some guidelines that reviewers can use to ensure an adequate evaluation:

List of items to review in an article

  1. It is original, new, and important to the research topic.
  2. It contains aspects of educational innovation in accordance with the specific topic.
  3. The structure used is appropriate, and the article is correctly written.
  4. It has the appropriate word count for the type of article being submitted.
  5. The title adequately reflects the content of the article and is written in an interesting way.
  6. It contains all the necessary components for publication, such as the authors' contributions and conflicts of interest.

Abstract

  1. It includes all the necessary components of a structured abstract.
  2. It presents the key findings of the research.

Introduction

  1. It is effective, clear, and well organized.
  2. It presents the topic and sets the context for the rest of the article.
  3. The section has the necessary references to support the ideas presented.

Methods

  1. They are described so that they can be reproduced and similar results obtained.
  2. Appropriate references to the methodologies and software used are included.
  3. The description of the new methodology is accurate and truthful.

Results, analysis, and discussion

  1. An interpretation of the results is included.
  2. New analyses may be suggested to improve the article.
  3. The analysis and discussion section compares the findings with the results of other studies conducted in Honduras and other contexts.

Conclusion

  1. It is valid and consistent with the results obtained.
  2. It should not be a summary of the research.
  3. It should answer the research question or objective.

References, tables, and figures

  1. References are accurate and truthful.
  2. The article has the appropriate number of references for its type.
  3. The article includes the appropriate number of tables and figures for its type.
  4. Tables and figures are of good quality in terms of resolution and presentation.
  5. The colors used in the figures are appropriate.
  6. Avoid using captions and footnotes.

To access the reviewer guidelines, please consult the respective site within LUMEN's Open Journal Systems: https://revistas.unitec.edu/index.php/lumen or contact the Editor-in-Chief at lumen@unitec.edu.

References of interest