Reviewer Selection and Assignment

Reviewer Selection and Assignment

MENTOR Revista de Investigación Educativa y Deportiva selects and assigns reviewers in order to ensure independent, relevant, confidential, and well-founded academic evaluations.

Reviewer Selection

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

Reviewers are selected on the basis of the correspondence between their expertise and the subject matter or methodology of the manuscript, as well as their independence from the authors and the editorial decision-making process.

Reviewers must not participate in the evaluation where an actual, potential, or perceived competing interest could compromise their independence or impartiality.

Before accepting a review assignment, reviewers must disclose any potential competing interest and maintain the confidentiality of the manuscript and all information obtained during the review process.

Assignment and Anonymity

MENTOR uses an external double-blind peer-review system.

The identities of the authors are not disclosed to reviewers, and the identities of reviewers are not disclosed to authors.

The editorial team is responsible for verifying that files have been properly anonymized before they are sent to reviewers.

The Declaration of Originality, Authorship, and Responsibility and any other document containing identifying information about the authors are for editorial team use only and will not be made available to reviewers.

Manuscript Evaluation

Each reviewer assesses the manuscript according to the scientific, methodological, ethical, and editorial criteria established by MENTOR.

The evaluation may be recorded through the OJS platform, the Peer Review Evaluation Matrix, or an annotated manuscript file. Reviewers are not required to duplicate comments when these have already been provided through one of these mechanisms.

Reviewers may inform the editorial team of potential indications of unattributed similarity, redundant publication, citation manipulation, data inconsistencies, or other integrity concerns identified during the evaluation.

Determination of potential plagiarism or misconduct is the responsibility of the editorial team and will be handled in accordance with MENTOR’s research integrity policies.

Reviewer Recommendations

Each reviewer may recommend:

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 automatically determine whether a manuscript will be published.

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.

Unanimity among reviewers is not required. The final editorial decision is made by the Editor-in-Chief or the responsible editor designated by MENTOR, taking into account the review reports, the authors’ responses, and compliance with the journal’s editorial and ethical policies.

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 within the deadline communicated by the editorial team.

Unless a different deadline is specified, authors will have up to thirty calendar days to submit the revised version. Where duly justified circumstances exist, an extension may be requested before the 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 for further evaluation.

Recognition of Reviewers

MENTOR may publicly acknowledge the contribution of individuals who serve as reviewers without identifying the specific manuscripts they evaluated.

Where MENTOR publishes a list of reviewers, the list will include their names and institutional affiliations and will not establish any relationship between an individual reviewer and a specific article.

Participation as a reviewer does not imply responsibility for the final editorial decision or for other content published by the journal.

Confidentiality

Manuscripts, supplementary files, review reports, and other information obtained during the evaluation process are confidential.

Reviewers must not share, reproduce, distribute, or use manuscript content for personal, academic, professional, or commercial advantage before publication.

Reviewers must also not upload manuscripts, excerpts, data, or unpublished information to public generative artificial intelligence tools.