Submissions

GRAPHIC STANDARDS

The graphic content may consist of figures (images, screenshots, photographs, graphs) and tables. These should provide pertinent and relevant information to the manuscript, be numbered and referenced in the text to be able to relate them to the ideas contained therein (Figure 1; Table 1). They must comply with the following:

- Tables should be inserted in the article in numbered form, following the paragraph where their contents are discussed, with their corresponding title and legend and numbered correlatively, following the updated APA standard.

- Figures should be inserted in the corresponding place in the article, with their corresponding title and caption and numbered correlatively, following the updated APA standard.

- Figures should be submitted separately in JPG format, in 300 dpi resolution or higher.

2. PUBLICATION POLICY

The evaluation process of the articles will be carried out by expert evaluators in the subject, under the double-blind system, in which authors and evaluators do not know each other's identity and institutional affiliation. The Editorial Team will consider the pertinence of the material received, notifying the author in due time about the acceptance or rejection of the material sent. The evaluation process includes the following stages and actions:

1. Every manuscript should be sent through the OJS platform from the option “Send article” https://revistadepedagogia.uchile.cl/index.php/RCHP/about/submissions

2. The submission will be reviewed in the first instance by the editorial team in order to check originality and fit with the focus of the journal. All manuscripts received will be passed through the Turnitin plagiarism detection software. The usual time frame established for this process is four weeks.

3. The editorial team may reject a submission if it does not meet the minimum standards of readability and academic structure.

4. Once the deadline for the reception of articles has passed, the editorial team will contact at least two evaluators, who will not know each other, nor will they have any background on the authors. Likewise, the authors will not know who will review their article. The usual period established for reviews is four weeks.

5. In case of discrepancy between the peer reviewers, the editorial team will ask another peer reviewer to join the process until the acceptance or rejection of the article is clarified.

6. The external evaluators may rate the text in any of the following categories:

- Accepted without modifications.

- Accepted with modifications.

- Rejected.

7. The editorial team will gather in a single document the evaluations of each article and send them to the respective authors through the platform, in order to inform the reasons for acceptance or rejection, or if modifications must be made to the document to be accepted and the deadlines for resubmission.

8. In case the manuscript is subject to corrections, the editorial team will receive the new version and will verify compliance with the observations and suggestions made by the evaluators.

9. By sending contributions to the Revista Chilena de Pedagogía, it should be understood that the authors know and subscribe to its copyright conditions.

The complete evaluation process of a manuscript sent to the Revista Chilena de Pedagogía usually takes between 4 and 24 weeks, from its reception to the evaluation report.

ETHICAL STANDARDS:

Declaration of ethics

The Revista Chilena de Pedagogía is edited according to high ethical standards and good practices for the publication of articles. This implies the definition of responsibilities for all the actors involved in the editorial process.

The Revista Chilena de Pedagogía adheres to principles of ethics and good practices for the publication of its articles. The Revista Chilena de Pedagogía adheres to the Code of Ethics of the Committee of Publication Ethics (COPE).

Misconduct and ethically questionable actions include the following:

1. Plagiarism, understood as the literal or substantial copying of another's work, making it appear that it is one's own or original to the item in question. This includes the copying of one's own articles and academic works, or the publication of one's own previous research results already published, as if they were new.

2. The falsification of research data or the use of public data compiled by third parties without citing the source.

3. Defamation of persons, social groups or institutions.

4. Action in the presence of a conflict of interest.

5. The falsification of information about institutional affiliation, access to funds, scholarships or financing, or other background information that seeks to place the work or its authors in a context to which they do not belong.

Responsibilities of the Editorial Team in ethical safeguarding

The editorial team is responsible for ensuring the application of the established publication standards and ethical principles, as well as for supervising the evaluation process.

The editorial team will use the Turnitin anti-plagiarism tool or equivalent to check the manuscript against materials available in academic media.

The editorial team will ensure that each article specifies the role of each of its co-authors in its realization, using the CRediT guidelines (Contribution Role Taxonomy https://credit.niso.org/). Each author should state his/her consent and participation in the preparation of the manuscript.

The editorial team will ensure the functioning of the peer review and double blind refereeing system. All author and peer reviewer information, as well as sensitive data included in the manuscripts and evaluation reports, must remain confidential during the editorial process.

Manuscripts will be reviewed by the editorial team and submitted for peer review regardless of the authors' race, gender, sexual orientation, religious beliefs, ethnicity, nationality, political ideology, or institutional affiliation.

After the evaluation of the manuscript, the reviewers will submit the corresponding evaluation forms, clearly stating their reasons for accepting or rejecting the original. Likewise, they will warn the editorial team if they detect or suspect cases of duplicate or repetitive publications, conflicts of interest, unrealistic data or any other ethical dilemma.

The editorial team will act impartially on the decisions made by the reviewers. If an original is accepted by one reviewer and rejected by another, it will be referred to a third reviewer. After peer review, the final decision on the publication of the articles, following the peer review process, is made by the editorial team.

The members of the editorial team may not use for their own benefit, nor disseminate any information presented in the articles or in the comments made by the peer reviewers.

Responsibilities of the Authors in the ethical safeguard:

By submitting material to Revista Chilena de Pedagogía, all authors accept the present ethical and publication standards:

1. All contributions for evaluation must be anonymous and unpublished, and must not have been approved or submitted for review or evaluation for publication in another journal or publication. They must be written in Spanish.

2. To guarantee the anonymity of the papers during the evaluation process, no information that could identify the authors, such as project names or first-person references to previous publications by the same authors, should be included. Although it is recommended that self-references be avoided, they should be made in an impersonal manner, as if they were the work of any other author.

3. The presentation of the same subject in several journals and/or the publication of the same work in several journals is an unethical practice and will imply the rejection of the article or its elimination from the Revista Chilena de Pedagogía, making the corresponding announcement.

4. Anonymize in the references and in the bibliography their previous works using the term AUTHOR/A instead of their last name. In the references, the title of your previous works will be replaced by the word TITLE. Electronic addresses and DOI of the papers should be replaced by “URL” and “DOI” respectively.

5. Authors should ensure accuracy in the presentation of their own ideas in their articles, differentiating them from cited ideas. Likewise, they must ensure that the text or materials that the authors have used are correctly acknowledged, cited and referenced. Plagiarism in any form is an unethical behavior that will be sanctioned according to the procedures established herein. This includes self-plagiarism, such as undeclared reference to one's own work, and the attempt to publish previous academic work as original publications, without adequate editing or expansion of background or results.

6. Authors are responsible for obtaining permission to publish any material included in it, such as photos, documents and data sets. Likewise, it is necessary that the article indicates the ethical aspects considered in the case of research involving human subjects.

7. All authors must declare their contribution in the manuscripts submitted using the CRediT guidelines (Contribution Role Taxonomy https://credit.niso.org/). In the case of articles with more than one author, all participants will commit a significant contribution to the definition of the contents and express recognition to those who have collaborated in the final result.

8. The sources of financing that have allowed the development of research or projects presented in the articles, as well as any commitment that could influence the interpretation of the conclusions and reflections, will be expressly consigned by the authors, who will guarantee the transparency and veracity of this information.

Responsibilities of the Evaluators in the ethical safeguards

1. The evaluators are academics and professionals specialized in different areas of the journal's thematic lines.

2. The reviewers are selected and assigned to review an article by the editorial team, based on their experience. However, an evaluator may refuse to review an article whose contents do not fit his/her area of expertise, and recommend a more specialized evaluator in the subject. In view of the timing of the editorial process, reviewers should inform the editor whether they accept or reject the review of an article as soon as possible.

3. Any manuscript submitted for review should be considered a confidential document. This manuscript should not be discussed or presented to third parties. Information contained in unpublished articles may not be used in whole or in part by reviewers.

4. The reviewers, through their review, undertake to ensure the accuracy and quality of the information in the articles. Any relevant aspect, omission or error will be reported in the review guideline. The same applies if the omission of relevant sources is detected, or if the work includes total or partial plagiarism.

5. Criticisms, comments and recommendations should be made in the review guideline, in a respectful and neutral manner, and based on reasonable and well-documented arguments.

Responsibilities and management of conflicts of interest

1. The Editorial Team of the Revista Chilena de Pedagogía declares that it is always attentive to the identification of conflicts of interest of its members, authors and reviewers. The member of the Editorial Team who declares a conflict of interest with respect to an article will abstain from participating in the parts of the editorial process that involve its evaluation, and will be replaced in his or her functions by another member.

2. For authors and evaluators, mechanisms for consultation on possible conflicts of interest are included, and the editorial team will maintain an active role in identifying their existence.

3. In case of detecting a conflict of interest not previously declared in the instruments provided, the Revista Chilena de Pedagogía reserves the right to reject the article in question, the evaluation carried out or apply the protocols provided for unethical behavior that may lead to the withdrawal of the article and its public announcement.

Data exchange and reproducibility

The Revista Chilena de Pedagogía encourages authors to make available the data that support the results published in their articles. Data that may compromise the privacy, security and dignity of the subjects or institutions involved, or that for legal or ethical reasons cannot be made public, are excluded. The data for which we promote their public availability include, for example, quantitative data and statistical analyses collected for research, qualitative analysis data and processes, images and figures of our own elaboration, and interviews anonymized or with informed consent for their public availability, among others.

For public availability of these data, the use of data repositories with long-term preservation of files and the use of persistent identifiers is recommended. Some examples of portals and data storage environments are Zenodo, re3data.org, Open Science Framework (OSF) or other data repositories specialized in specific topics. In that sense, we encourage authors to direct the location of processed or raw data, by means of a DOI or a persistent URL address, in the final approved version of their paper after peer review. We also encourage that such data be made available under open licenses so that they can be reused.

Although data sharing is not mandatory in our journal, we reserve the right to request confidential access to any primary data necessary to verify results.

Authors will be required to properly cite any publicly available research data in their reference list.

Disclaimer

The opinions and contents of published papers are the sole responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Journal. Upon receipt of the articles, editors and reviewers are free to suggest partial modifications of their content without affecting the sense of the author's arguments. After the acceptance of the articles for publication, Revista Chilena de Pedagogía is free to reproduce the contents for dissemination purposes, duly indicating the authors.

RECOMMENDATION TO AUTHORS FOR THE USE OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE (GenAI).

Generative AI is a type of artificial intelligence technology that can produce various types of content, including text, images, audio, and synthetic data. Examples include ChatGPT, Gemini, Perplexity, etc.

In Revista Chilena de Pedagogía manuscripts will be treated as a confidential document. The Editorial Team will not load a manuscript or any part of it into a generative artificial intelligence tool, as this may violate the confidentiality and property rights of the authors and, when the article contains personally identifiable information, may violate data privacy rights.

The Editorial Team will not use generative AI or AI-assisted technologies to assist in the evaluation or decision-making process of a manuscript, as critical thinking and original evaluation are necessary for this work, and there is a risk that the technology will generate incorrect, incomplete, or biased conclusions about the manuscript.

Regarding the use of generative artificial intelligence by the authors of the manuscript, the manuscript should be governed by the recommendations of the Word Association of Medical Editors (WAME), which are as follows:

1. Chatbots cannot be authors.
2. Authors should be transparent about the use of chatbots and provide information about their use.
3. Authors are responsible for the material provided by a chatbot in their manuscript and for proper attribution of all resources (including the original resources of the chatbot-generated material).
4. The editorial team and peer reviewers should specify to the author(s) any use of chatbot in the evaluation of the manuscript and generation of revisions.