Every article submitted to Panorama must go through the process of delivering and complying with the editorial policies, which reflect in the strict attention, care and presentation of the following:

• Article in the template for submitting an article
• Form for submitting an article duly filled out and signed, one per author. This is an acceptance of the terms and conditions therein.

 

Articles that fulfill the initial conditions will be subject to an evaluation process  by experts (peers and experts) following the external double-blind modality. Authors and evaluators will remain anonymous; for quality purposes, professionals that work at Editorial will not act as experts, thus guaranteeing the process’ transparency and objectivity.:

1. Evaluators will be selected based on criteria of correspondence, expertise, proficiency and acknowledgement of the submitted article’s topic.
2. Without exception, evaluators will be specialists of national or international institutions, they will comment on the pertinence and quality of the text and decide its feasibility to be published.
3. Evaluators will be in charge of reviewing and analyzing texts that are original contributions to the field of educational research, which have pertinent theoretical frameworks and suitable methodology; they will assess the relevance of the findings described in the article.
4. Texts will be forwarded to two experts, affiliated to an institution that differs from the authors,’ for comment. Finally, based on the evaluators’ recommendations, the editor’s decision will be as follows:

EVALUATOR 1	EVALUATOR 2	RESULT
Approved	Approved	Accepted
Approved	Not approved	To be sent to a third evaluator. His/her decision will complete the acceptance scheme, it shall be unappealable
Approved	Conditioned	To be sent to the authors for changes and adjustments, per recommendations of the evaluator who made the conditioning assessment
Not approved	Conditioned	Rejected
Not approved	Not approved	Rejected

 

Panorama’s peer evaluation process verifies the quality of the manuscript by considering these items:

 

Contribution to knowledge

Contribution to the development of theory / knowledge of reality, originality of ideas / development of a new methodology.

 

Article’s interest and/or relevance:

- Quality of the theoretical framework:

• Fundamental, updated and articulated literature review to deliver the objectives.
• The framework allows being developed in the methodology.

- Methodological rigor:

• Clarity about how the results (sources, obtainment, information processing) were obtained.
• For quantitative articles: representativeness, reliability and data validity.
• For qualitative articles: clarity in the interpretative framework, justification of proposals and conclusions.

- Analytical level: 

Depth in reflection, argumentation / justification of the proposals in results’ reflection, which is related to theory, analytical framework and objectives.

- Coherence: 

Correspondence and articulation between the title, problem, objective, theoretical framework, methodology and conclusions.

- Style: 

Clarity and simplicity; fluency and agility in developing the text; correct use of didactic aid (examples, graphs, tables, etc.)

 

Evaluators’ Handling of Results

1. The editors team will guarantee that evaluators’ opinions have solid arguments to support the editorial decision. Moreover, that the opinions are presented with objective and respectful disciplinary grounds, in terms that are constructive for authors’ qualification.
2. Evaluators’ opinions are unappealable.
3. Per the Habeas Data, the editorial team will not disclose the evaluators’ names.
4. Authors with conditioned articles will be given two (2) weeks maximum to deliver an updated version of the work to the editor. After this deadline, no adjustments can be submitted and authors’ will be automatically considered to have opted out of the editorial process.