Evaluators

Peer Review Process

This journal employs a double-blind peer review process, aiming to assign reviewers with experience relevant to the submitted manuscript.

Reviews must provide evidence of a thoughtful analysis of the manuscript, offering constructive feedback and adding value to the knowledge and information presented within it.

Mission

The mission of the peer review process is to achieve excellence and rigor in academic publications and research.

Vision

Our vision is to give voice to professionals in the subject area who contribute unique and diverse academic perspectives to the field.

Values

The journal values diverse perspectives in the field and reviewers who provide critical, constructive, and respectful feedback to authors.

Reviewers are invited to assess manuscripts from a gender perspective, ensuring that research equitably considers men and women in its development, analysis, and conclusions. Additionally, it is recommended that evaluation reports include comments on potential gender biases in methodology, language use, and interpretation of results, thereby promoting more inclusive and equitable science.

Ethics

All invitations to review, abstracts, manuscripts, and reviews must be kept strictly confidential. Reviewers must not share their review or any information about the review process with anyone without the consent of the editors and authors involved, even after publication. This also applies to "comments to the author" from other reviewers shared with you in the editorial decision.

Originals Evaluation Process

1- The Editor-in-Chief will conduct an initial review of the manuscript, ensuring the following points:

• That the manuscript’s topic aligns with the journal's editorial line, and in the case of manuscripts submitted to the monographic section, that it aligns with the section's theme.
• That the received manuscript complies with the formal standards of a scientific research article.
• That the manuscript contains a potentially relevant contribution to knowledge.

2- If the manuscript meets the above criteria, it will be forwarded to the Special Editor in the case of articles related to the special section, or to the corresponding Section Editor for articles in the Tribuna or Tribuna EBEN sections. The designated editor will then request two reviewers to prepare a report on the scientific quality of the article.

3- Each reviewer will receive the manuscript in a way that ensures the authors remain unidentified. They will be asked to accept or decline the review task within a maximum period of 7 calendar days. If the selected reviewer declines the review or if no response is received within the deadline, the Section or Special Editor will assign the review to a new potential reviewer, restarting the 7-day period.

4- If the reviewer accepts to review the article, they must register as a reviewer at the journal's website: http://revistaselectronicas.ujaen.es/index.php/REE/user/register. They will then be granted a 15-day period to complete the report on the scientific quality of the article.

To facilitate the review process, the journal provides reviewers with a form requesting them to be as specific as possible in their feedback and to offer constructive suggestions to guide authors in improving their work. Specifically, the review form requests:

• Overall evaluation of the work: A brief report on the article’s relevance (originality, methodology, literature review, techniques and data used, obtained results, conclusions, bibliography, etc.).
• Deficiencies and/or errors: Aspects that should be introduced/removed and any shortcomings that the author(s) need to address.
• Modifications: Minor or substantial modifications necessary for the article to be published.
• Rejection: Reasons why the publication of this work should be rejected.
• Other observations: Any other relevant aspects about the evaluated article, visible only to the Editor.
• Final recommendation: Accept this submission; Publishable with modifications; Resubmit for review; Forward to another publication; Not publishable.

5- Based on the reasoned recommendations in the two review reports, the Section or Special Editor must make one of the following decisions:

• Accept the article for publication in its current form.
• Request modifications to the article according to the reviewers' feedback, publishing it after these changes are made.
• Request modifications to the article based on the reviewers' reports and resubmit it to the reviewers after revisions.
• Reject the publication of the article.

In any case, the Section or Special Editor must prepare a reasoned report on their editorial decision and send it, along with the two anonymous review reports, to the authors. If the editorial decision includes a request for revisions, the decision report must specify the deadline for the required modifications.

6- Upon receiving the revised article, the Section or Special Editor will issue the final publication report or resubmit it to the reviewers, repeating the steps from point 4 onwards.

List of Reviewers for the Last Three Published Issues

Álvaro José Rojas Lamorena (Universidad de Granada)

Ana Belén Bastidas Manzano (Universidad a Distancia de Madrid)

Ana Belén Mudarra Fernández (Universidad de Jaén)

Ana Licerán Gutiérrez (Universidad de Jaén)

Ángela Andrea Caviedes Conde (Universidad Rey Juan Carlos)

Ángeles Jiménez García -Carriazo (Universidad de Cádiz)

Antonia Estrella Ramón (Universidad de Almería)

Arta Antonovica (Universidad Rey Juan Carlos)

Belén Prados Peña (Universidad de Granada)

Carlos Alberto Fernandes Sampaio (Instituto Politécnico de Castelo Branco)

Carmen González Zapatero (Universidad de Salamanca)

Carmen Victoria Escolano Asensi (Universidad Miguel Hernández)

Concepción Martínez Alcalá (Universidad de Jaén)

Cristina Estevão (Universidade da Beira Interior)

Cristina López Vargas (Universidad Pablo de Olavide)

Eduardo Dias Leite (Instituto Federal de Educação, Ciência e Tecnologia de Brasília)

Eduardo Sanz Arcega (Universidad de Zaragoza)

Eduardo Terán Yépez (Universidad de Almería)

Felipe Serrano Pérez (Universidad del País Vasco)

Fernando Fuentes García (Universidad de Córdoba)

Fernando García García (Universidad Politécnica de Valencia)

Francisco Javier Gutiérrez García (Universidad de La Laguna)

Francisco Javier Ramírez (Universidad de Castilla La Mancha)

Francisco Peco Torres (Universidad de Granada)

Francisco Sánchez-Cubo (Universidad de Málaga)

Inmaculada Carrasco Monteagudo (Universidad de Castilla La Mancha)

Isabel Carrillo Hidalgo (Universidad de Jaén)

Ismael Moya Clemente (Universidad Politécnica de Valencia)

Janire Gordon Isasi (Universidad de Deusto)

Jesús Barrena Martínez (Universidad de Cádiz)

Jordana Marques Kneipp (Universidade Federal de Santa Maria, Brasil)

José Antonio Martínez Díaz (Universidad de Alicante)

Juan Alberto Hueso Arrabal (Universidad de Jaén)

Juan Carlos Rodríguez Cohard (Universidad de Jaén)

Julio Vena Oya (Universidad de Jaén)

Laura Rodríguez Fernández (Universidad Nacional de Educación a Distancia)

Luis Soriano (Consejo Nacional de Humanidades. Ciencias y Tecnologías Zapopan Jalisco, México)

María de los Ángeles Iniesta-Bonillo (Universidad de Almería)

María del Mar Ramos González (Universidad Complutense de Madrid)

Manuel Jesús Cobo Martín (Universidad de Granada)

María Cordente Rodríguez (Universidad de Castilla La Mancha)

María Soledad Esteban Garlaza (Universidad del País Vasco)

María Vázquez-Fariñas (Universidad de Málaga)

Mariano Castro-Valdivia (Universidad de Jaén)

Marta Muñoz Guarasa (Universidad de Jaén)

Nieves Pérez (Universidad de Granada)

Noelia Araújo Vila (Universidad de Vigo)

Pablo Cárdenas García (Universidad de Jaén)

Paola De Salvo (Università degli Studi di Perugia)

Purificación Parrado Martínez (Universidad de Jaén)

Rafael Espinoza (Universidad del Zulia, Venezuela)

Rafaela Alfalla-Luque (Universidad de Sevilla)

Raquel Barreda Tarrazona (Universidad de Jaén)

Salvador Pérez Moreno (Universidad de Málaga)

Sandra María Sánchez Cañizares (Universidad de Córdoba)

Sara Herrada Lores (Universidad de Almería)

Silvia Álvarez Santás (Universidad a Distancia de Madrid)

Tomás López-Guzmán (Universidad de Córdoba)