Peer Review Process
The reviewers are chosen considering their expertise in the subject to be reviewed.
- The peer review is a double-blind type and all steps are done through the OJS online system.
- Compliance with the standards and the scope of the journal is reviewed by the Editor-in-Chief and the Staff. Failure to comply with the scope results in the rejection of the article and non-compliance with the standards leads to the request for its compliance by the authors;
- The manuscript is subjected to the analysis of plagiarism using the TURNITIN software and the report is evaluated by the Editor-in-Chief who can reject or request the authors to change parts of the manuscript;
- Attended the scope and requirement of non-plagiarism, one editor is appointed, and 2 reviewers are invited.
- The article is rejected when 2 reviewers reject it. If the reports are divergent regarding rejection, 2 more reviewers are invited, and they are given time to analyze the manuscript;
- The Editor may request information and corrections from the authors in conjunction with or separately from peer reviews reports;
- There is one (1) round, but in certain cases, it is possible to review in a second round if the manuscript has many revisions;
- The time accepted by the authors to return the revised version depends on the complexity of the correction and the round. In the case of non-return in time, the article can be rejected, and resubmitting as a new submission is permitted;
- The editor or editorial board considers the feedback provided by the peer reviewers and arrives at a decision. The following are the most common decisions:
- Accept Submission: The submission will be accepted without revisions.
- Revisions Required: The submission will be accepted after minor changes have been made.
- Resubmit for Review: The submission needs to be reworked, but with significant changes, may be accepted. It will require a second round of review, however.
- Decline Submission: The submission will not be published in the journal.
Further information regarding the peer review process for this journal is shown in the following flowchart:
