In this document, a series of ideas are provided for reviewers, with the aim that they can use it as a guide when carrying out their task of reviewing the assigned scientific work.

1. Checkpoints

• 1. Novelty and opportunity: of the object of study, of the methodology or both.

• 2. Theoretical-conceptual framework: resentation of background or state of the art in a rich and meaningful way.

• 3. Materials and methods: rationality, suitability, traceability.

• 4. Results: novelty, significance, academic impact, social impact or both, synthesis of results.

• 5. Information visualization: appropriate use of tables, diagrams, graphs, etc., to represent relevant information from the work.

• 6. Discussion and conclusions: significance, comparison with other works, addressing questions, achievement of objectives, new research.

• 7. Title and abstract: suitability, correctly expresses the content of the work.

• 8. Structure: use of IMRaD (Introduction, Method, Results, and Discussion) or an equivalent structure suitable for the analysis of the work.

• 9. References: complete and in accordance with APA 7th ed. guidelines.

• 10. Writing: good writing, easy comprehension, academic register, logical organization, connectivity, etc.

• Recommendation: do not reject a work that is favourable in all the above points but, in the reviewer's opinion, lacks appropriate writing. In this case, it is recommended to indicate this aspect in the review report and request a resubmission with a modification in the writing to make it more suitable. This way, it can avoided losing a novel and interesting work whose research has been properly developed but fails in writing.

2. Additional Relevant Issues/span>

a) What is important in research?

• That it is significant. That is, it makes valuable contributions to the field (theory) or to society (solutions), or preferably, to both.
• Methodology. It should be appropriate to the object of study and the objectives.
• Research should be valid and presented in a transparent, traceable, and replicable manner.
• The chosen format to synthesize the results is essential.

b) What is important in an article?

• That it is well written. It should be understandable even by non-specialists in the field. An article that is too specialized and understood only by the authors is of no use.
• Structure: applying IMRaD or an equivalent for the transparency it imposes.
• Theoretical framework, discussion, and conclusions.

3. Recommendations for preparing the peer review report.

a) Summary

• Characteristics of the research and its significance or most significant contributions.

b) Issues

• Major (usually related to the research).
• Minor (usually related to the manuscript).

c) Recommendations

• Well-reasoned improvement proposals.

Format of reviewer comments

• Unitary paragraphs: each paragraph should focus on one idea.
• Observations and recommendations: preferably in a list format.
• Length: between 1 and 3 pages (approximate).
• Explicitly avoid:
• Long paragraphs, with subordinate sentences, with more than one idea, and with different intertwined recommendations.
• Trying to minimize personal biases as much as possible.
• Express ideas and recommendations in a way that authors can work with.

Summarizing, as a final suggestion for reviewers, when indicating any recommendation for the authors (SEES scheme - Publons Academy):

• 1. Make a Statement.
• 2. Explain your reasons.
• 3. Provide an Example.
• 4. Suggest a Solution.