Peer Review Process

MENTOR Revista de Investigación Educativa y Deportiva applies an initial editorial screening followed by external double-blind peer review for manuscripts that meet the journal’s established requirements.

Initial Editorial Screening

All submitted manuscripts undergo an initial editorial assessment to verify their correspondence with MENTOR’s focus and scope, compliance with the Author Guidelines, manuscript structure, proper anonymization, ethical requirements, and other editorial conditions established by the journal.

Similarity screening and other editorial integrity checks may also be conducted at this stage. The results of such tools are interpreted by the editorial team and do not, by themselves, constitute a determination of plagiarism or misconduct.

Manuscripts that fall outside MENTOR’s focus and scope or fail to meet the minimum editorial requirements may be rejected at this stage without being sent for peer review.

External Peer Review

Manuscripts that successfully pass the initial editorial screening are sent to at least two independent external reviewers selected according to their academic, scientific, or methodological expertise relevant to the content of the manuscript.

MENTOR uses a double-blind peer-review model. The identities of the authors are not disclosed to the reviewers, and the identities of the reviewers are not disclosed to the authors.

Reviewers are not part of the editorial team responsible for making the decision on the manuscript and must disclose any actual, potential, or perceived competing interest before accepting the review assignment.

Author-Recommended Reviewers

MENTOR does not request or accept reviewer recommendations from authors. Reviewers are selected independently by the editorial team based on their academic, scientific, or methodological expertise relevant to the manuscript and the absence of competing interests.

Original research articles, review articles, and theoretical essays that successfully pass the initial editorial screening are subject to this peer-review process.

Exceptions to External Peer Review

Editorials and other content prepared or commissioned by the editorial team that do not report original research are not subject to external peer review. Such content undergoes editorial review and is clearly identified according to its publication type.

All original research articles, review articles, and theoretical essays are subject to external double-blind peer review.

Articles published in special issues undergo the same editorial evaluation and external peer-review process as articles published in regular issues.

Confidentiality of the Review Process

Manuscripts and information associated with the evaluation process are treated as confidential.

Review reports intended for authors are communicated anonymously. Reviewers may record their comments through the OJS platform, the Peer Review Evaluation Matrix, or an annotated manuscript file, without the need to duplicate the same information.

Comments expressly identified as confidential comments to the editor are not shared with the authors.

Peer-review reports are confidential, remain anonymous, and are not published alongside the articles.

Supplementary Materials

When supplementary materials form an integral part of the manuscript and are necessary for an appropriate assessment of the research, they may be made available to reviewers and considered during the review process.

Files containing information that could identify the authors will not be made available to reviewers.

Review Outcomes

Each reviewer may make one of the following recommendations:

1. Accept without revisions.
2. Accept with minor revisions.
3. Major revisions required and further review.
4. Reject.

Reviewer recommendations are advisory and do not in themselves constitute the final publication decision.

When the two review reports contain substantial differences that prevent a well-supported editorial decision, the manuscript may be sent to a third independent reviewer.

Review of Revised Manuscripts

When revisions are requested, authors must submit a revised version of the manuscript and provide a reasoned response to the comments received.

The deadline for submitting the revised version will be communicated with the editorial decision and, unless a different deadline is specified, will be up to thirty calendar days. Where duly justified circumstances exist, authors may request an extension before the established deadline expires.

Minor revisions may be verified by the editorial team when no further specialized scientific assessment is required.

Manuscripts requiring major revisions may be returned to the reviewers to determine whether the comments have been adequately addressed.

Editorial Decision

The final decision to accept, request further revisions, or reject a manuscript is made by the Editor-in-Chief or the responsible editor designated by MENTOR.

The decision is based on the reviewer reports, the authors’ responses, compliance with MENTOR’s editorial and ethical policies, and the scientific quality of the manuscript.

Receipt of a manuscript, referral for peer review, or a favorable recommendation from reviewers does not guarantee acceptance or publication.

When a manuscript is rejected, the corresponding submission is closed. The decision is communicated to the authors together with the comments intended for them, where applicable.

Accepted manuscripts are scheduled for publication according to MENTOR’s editorial planning.