Peer review process

I. Evaluation process:

1. The submissions undergo a prior analysis of the Editorial Team in order to verify their thematic adequacy to the editorial line and relevance, compliance with the editorial standards of the Journal and compliance with the Statement os Ethics on Publications;

2. The process of evaluation of scientific articles is done by double-blind peer review, and may the evaluators integrate the Reviewers Body, or be designated ad hoc, depending on the need and interest of the Journal, and especially the Dossier section;

3. The evaluation will be carried out by means of a form in the system, within a period of 60 to 120 days from submission, and will take into account the following questions:

  1. Does the article follow the journal’s submission rules?
  2. Are the title, abstract and keywords accurate?
  3. Does the article contain practice of cross-citations or self-citation at excessive or predatory levels?
  4. Comments on formal aspects of the article
  5. Is the article suitable in methodological terms?
  6. Comments on methodological aspects of the article
  7. Does the article present critical contributions to the research field in which it is inserted?
  8. Comments on the contributions of the article to the field of research in which it is inserted
  9. Comments and/or indications on the bibliography
  10. General evaluation of the article
  11. Mandatory corrections

4. The opinions shall make one of the following recommendations in the evaluation of scientific papers: (i) accept, with or without amendment recommendations; (ii) mandatory corrections; (iii) recommend a new round of evaluation; (iv) submit to another journal; (v) reject. Considering the opinions and not being binding, the Editorial Team will make one of the following decisions:

4.1. Approval, with or without recommendation for amendment;

4.2. Mandatory corrections: the Editorial Team or a designated reviewer will analyze the changes. If sufficient, the article will go to publication; if insufficient, it will be rejected or, depending on the case, will pass through another round of evaluation;

4.3. New round of evaluation: the author should carefully consider the opinions, justifying what is impertinent. Once the revised article is received, it will be re-evaluated by the same or new reviewers.

5. In all cases, the authors and/or authors will be informed and have time to make any modifications;

6. If one of the opinions is for approval or mandatory corrections, and the other for non-approval, a third evaluation may be carried out by a new appointed reviewer or by the Editorial Team;

6.1. If the opinion that rejects presents a greater reason than that of accepted, the Editorial Team has the prerogative to reject if it so considers;

7. Submissions to the thematic dossiers may be evaluated by organizers or whom they recommend from the Reviewers Body and/or ad hoc, provided that double-blind peer review is guaranteed.

8. The Journal reserves the right to make changes in the original works of spelling and grammar, without altering the content and style of the texts.

 

[Image of the Stream]

 

II. On standards of conduct and conflict of interest:

The evaluation process is based on the section "4 Standards of ethical conduct for referees" of the Declaration of Ethics on Publications, and the Editorial Team, the authors, and/or referees must observe these guidelines.

 

 

*Peer Review Process of April 9, 2025.