To ensure the academic and scientific quality of the publication, all scientific articles sent to Interdisciplinary Journal of Didactics will be reviewed by experts.

Book reviews will not go through the external peer review procedure, but they will have to pass a prior review.

1 Prior review

Once an original article is submitted to the journal, the author will receive an automatic e-mail confirming its receipt. Subsequently, an editor will be assigned to carry out a prior review in order to verify:

1. The adequacy of the content to the aims of the journal and, where appropriate, to the specific theme of a monographic issue proposed in a call for papers in the announcements section.
2. Compliance with the formal requirements established in the Author Guidelines section.
3. Compliance with the publication ethics and anti-plagiarism policies.
4. The manuscript has sufficient academic quality and rigor.

During the prior review, editors may require assistance from members of the Editorial Board of the journal.

If the work did not pass the prior review, the author will be required to make the necessary modifications within 10 days.

Likewise, should a work be rejected, the author will be informed of the reasons for the rejection.

2 Peer evaluation

After this prior review, articles will be evaluated by two external experts through a double blind peer review process. Reviewers will be selected by the Editorial Board on account of their field of expertise. The journal will annually publish the list of reviewers who have participated in the editorial process.

The selected reviewers will be sent an anonymized version of the article to elaborate a review within a maximum period of four weeks. On completion, they will fill out a report using a (PDF) form available on the web. This form will be public as an evidence of editorial transparency and for authors to familiarise with the evaluation process. The novelty of the results as well as the methodological rigour of the research and analysis will be valued.

In cases of conflicting reports, or in other cases deemed appropriate, the participation of a third reviewer may be required.

In view of the reports, the Editorial Board will:

1. Accept the publication.
2. Decide that the article is to be published with modifications. (Some minor changes will be needed).
3. Decide that it should be re-evaluated. (Some major changes as well as a new evaluation will be needed).
4. Reject the publication.

If the article is accepted, the author will be informed accordingly and the article will be published without any modification in the corresponding issue according to the publication periodicity of the journal.

In the case of articles classified as to be published with modifications, minor changes will be required in order to be accepted for publication. The author will be required to make the proposed changes within 15 days. This notification will be accompanied by a copy of the reviewers' reports. Once the modified article has been received, the editor will verify the correct implementation of the requested changes.

If the article is to be re-evaluated, it will require major changes (rewrite, reorganization, new approach, etc.). The author will be required to carry out the necessary work within 30 days. This notification will be accompanied by a copy of the reviewers' reports. Once the modified version has been submitted, it will be newly evaluated by two external reviewers.

If the publication of the article is rejected, the author will be informed of the reasons for the rejection.

In any case, the decision on the publication of an original will be communicated to the author within a maximum period of 4 months since the receipt of the manuscript by the journal.

3 Proof Reading

A copy of the article will be sent to the authors in PDF format for them to verify if any modifications are necessary (typographical errors, metadata, etc.). These changes will under no circumstances alter the reviewed contents. If no reply is given within 3 days, the article will be considered right for publication. No changes will be allowed once it is published.

4 Participation as evaluator

Those wishing to act as reviewer for this or other journals available on the University of Alicante portal can request it from their user account (Edit Profile - Roles). If they do not have an account, they must create one. They may also send an email to the journal’s contact person to request a certificate stating that they have collaborated with the journal as reviewers.

Reviewers must comply with the publications ethics policy, and preserve the confidentiality of the manuscript and the peer review. They are not entitled to monetary compensation.