Editorial Policies

Focus and Scope

HOW is a biannual publication led by ASOCOPI, the Colombian Association of Teachers of English. It is a journal by and for teachers of English who wish to share outcomes of educational and research experiences intended to add understanding to English language teaching practices. Therefore, the journal falls within the field of education and, specifically, the teaching and learning of English as a second or foreign language.


Section Policies

Research Reports

In-progress and final reports of studies carried out by teacher-researchers or student-teachers studying in BA programmes. The abstract of the paper should explicitly indicate this and the structure of the article should include the main components of a research report: introduction, method, results, conclusions, references, among others.

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Reports on Pedagogical Experiences

These tell the reader about teaching practices that have been systematized by the authors as a result of an analytical process. Reports on pedagogical experiences are expected to include a solid justification, the description of the processes followed in a given educational setting, samples of such processes, results of the experiences and conclusions. The authors are also expected to support their manuscript with theoretical and/or research studies and to present analytical perspectives.

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Reflections and Revision of Themes

Specific subjects or topics can be examined in depth in two types of articles: reflections and revisions of themes. An article of reflection presents the results of a research project from the author’s analytical, interpretative or critical perspective. It is about a specific topic and draws on the close examination of a variety of sources as well as clearly shows the author’s informed points of view. An article of revision is the result of a research project in which one analyses, systematizes and integrates the outcomes of published or non-published research projects about a specific topic. They gather the advances and developmental tendencies in the field and support them with a rich and varied selection of references.

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Peer Review Process

All submissions follow a double blind review process, that is, the identity of authors is never revealed to reviewers throughout the review process and vice versa. On the whole, the evaluation process lasts four months approximately. First, each manuscript is sent to two reviewers who can accept, reject, or suggest that the manuscript be revised and resubmitted. In case the evaluations of the two reviewers are at variance, the following is a summary of the steps that will be taken:

Evaluation 1: AcceptRecommendation: Revise and resubmit
Evaluation 2: Revise and resubmit


Evaluation 1: RejectRecommendation: Reject
Evaluation 2: Revise and resubmit


Evaluation 1: AcceptRecommendation: Send to a third reviewer. The two concepts (out of the three) that are similar at the end of the evaluation process will be used to decide on whether to accept or reject the manuscript.
Evaluation 2: Reject

If an article requires major changes it will be returned to the author with the recommendation: revise and resubmit. The author will be given three weeks to revise the manuscript; failure to comply with this deadline will result in the manuscript being considered as a new submission. Once the revised version is received it will be sent to the two original reviewers (or the third one, if applicable) for their final evaluation. The editing process will start once the article is accepted after having been read by members of the editorial committee and the advisory board. Authors should be ready to revise it if necessary and the edited version will be sent to the author for approval. Authors will be given deadlines to revise the manuscript throughout the process of edition as well; final acceptance and date of publication of the manuscript depend on the timely response to such deadlines.


Publication Frequency

The deadline for submissions of manuscripts for the first issue (published in January) is April 1st of the previous year. Submissions for the second issue (published in July) will be received until October 1st of the previous year.


Open Access Policy

This journal provides immediate open access to its content on the principle that making research freely available to the public supports a greater global exchange of knowledge.



This journal utilizes the LOCKSS system to create a distributed archiving system among participating libraries and permits those libraries to create permanent archives of the journal for purposes of preservation and restoration. More...


Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice Statement

The purpose of this declaration is to clarify the expected duties and ethical behavior for all the parties involved in the process of submission, evaluation, and selection of manuscripts sent to the HOW journal.

Duties Expected of the Editor

  • The Editor is responsible for maintaining the quality of the contents of the journal and, as such, has the final say on whether to accept or reject a manuscript.
  • The Editor ensures that all submissions comply with the editorial policies and the guidelines for authors found on the journal website and in the print version.
  • The Editor guarantees that all authors are treated fairly and their manuscripts evaluated without regard to the authors’ race, gender, religious beliefs, sexual orientation, political philosophy, ethnic origin, institutional affiliation, or citizenship.
  • The Editor is expected to be in constant communication with authors and reviewers about the status of a manuscript or about any other issue that may arise along the process of submission, evaluation, and selection of manuscripts and which requires the attention of some or all of the parties involved.
  • Initially, the Editor assigns two reviewers for each manuscript taking into account the reviewers’ areas of interest. The Editor must also ensure the double-blind nature of the review process. When the two concepts from the evaluators are at odds, the Editor must select a third reviewer. In the end, the Editor must consider all the factors present along the evaluation of a manuscript to reach a final decision.
  • The Editor treats with confidentiality all the information gathered throughout the submission, evaluation, and selection of a manuscript, disclosing only what is necessary for the purposes of evaluation and edition and to the incumbent parties.
  • The Editor refers to the policies of the journal, the guidelines for authors, or the present declaration to decide on cases of unethical behavior (plagiarism, self-plagiarism, parallel submission). However, when another issue of a legal nature not contemplated in the abovementioned documents arises, the Editor will resort to the Editorial Committee to define the course of action.

Duties Expected of the Author

  • The Author submits manuscripts that follow standards of academic writing and that are based on original research. The manuscript should advance the knowledge in the field by presenting data that are easily replicated and relevant to interested readers. Falsification and manipulation of data are unethical and unacceptable behaviors.
  • The Author should consult and comply with the guidelines for authors and the editorial policies of the journal prior to the submission of a manuscript.
  • The Author must be aware that practices like parallel submission (sending the same manuscript simultaneously to other journals), plagiarism, and self-plagiarism are unacceptable. All manuscripts with evidence of any of those practices will be immediately rejected and no future submissions from the same author will be considered for evaluation.
  • The Author properly cites all works used in the composition of the manuscript. A list of all the references cited is included at the end of the manuscript (following the APA style, 6th ed., as stated in the guidelines for authors).
  • The authorship of a manuscript is only granted to the people who made significant contributions either during the development of the study or during the composition of the manuscript. The inclusion of “guest authors” (people who did not actually collaborate at any point but who, for some reason, are listed as authors) or the omission of “ghost authors” (authors who made significant contribution but who are not listed as authors) are unethical and unacceptable practices. People who made minor contributions can be labelled as collaborators and their help mentioned in an acknowledgement note at the end of the manuscript.
  • The maximum number of authors per submission to the HOW journal is three. In this case, the corresponding author makes sure that the co-authors agree with the version of the manuscript submitted for evaluation or with that which results after a process of revision and resubmission.
  • The Author sends the consent form used to obtain authorization from participants (if these are present) in order to reproduce the information gathered from them. For underage participants, the consent form must be signed by their legal guardians.
  • The Author ensures the anonymity of the participants involved in a given study either by giving them pseudonyms or by using codes to identify them.
  • The Author must obtain permission to replicate all copyrighted material used within the manuscript. This permission should be sent together with the manuscript.
  • The Author discloses any potential conflict of interest that may originate along the process of evaluation. The Author is also required to give information about the funding sources of the study described in the manuscript.
  • The Author maintains a respectful and professional tone in the communication with the Editor and in the comments addressed to the Reviewers. The Author is entitled to object to any evaluation if it is considered poorly carried out.
  • The Author promptly informs the Editor of any error that may be found in an article after its publication. The Author and the Editor will work together to try and fix the error in the best way possible. An erratum may be issued and, in extreme cases, the article may be retracted altogether.
  • If the work described in the manuscript involves animal subjects, psychological procedures, or any hazardous element (e.g., chemicals), the Author provides the necessary information to verify that the international ethical standards for these cases were properly followed.

Duties Expected of the Reviewer

  • Based on their expertise, reviewers assist the Editor in the evaluation and selection of manuscripts.
  • Reviewers respond promptly to the Editor’s evaluation requests, whether to accept them or decline them.
  • Reviewers comply with the deadline established by the Editor to complete the review. The corresponding evaluation form must be adequately filled in and reviewers are also entitled to write comments to the authors directly on the manuscript. Reviewers perform their evaluations in a respectful and objective manner, trying to give the necessary arguments to support their comments or suggestions.
  • As part of the evaluation process, reviewers treat the information used or produced with confidentiality.
  • Reviewers also disclose any potential conflict of interest as well as any other major problem that they may detect during evaluation (falsification of data, plagiarism, parallel submission, etc.).