Editorial Process Policy

Editorial Process in Stages

This policy establishes the ethical procedures and guidelines that govern the evaluation process, ensuring integrity, academic quality, and transparency from submission to the final decision on manuscripts.

Guiding Principles and Confidentiality

  • Review System: The journal uses a double-blind peer review system, ensuring reciprocal anonymity between authors and reviewers.

  • Confidentiality: The identity of reviewers remains strictly confidential throughout the editorial process. The manuscript is confidential and must not be shared.

  • Purpose: The review process aims to ensure the consistency, academic quality, and social relevance of the texts, contributing to the improvement of manuscripts and informing the editorial decision.

Process Stages

STAGE 1 - Preliminary Analysis (Desk Review)
All submitted manuscripts undergo an initial check by the Editorial Team, which assesses:

  • Relevance: Adherence to the journal's scope and editorial focus.

  • Compliance: Conformity with formatting guidelines and use of recommended text templates.

  • Integrity: Quality of metadata, adherence to technical criteria, and similarity analysis (to verify originality and absence of plagiarism).

Possible Decisions at this Stage:

  • Immediate Rejection(if it fails to meet basic requirements).

  • Request for formal adjustments to proceed.

  • Request for resubmission in accordance with the guidelines.

  • Forwarding for Peer Review.

STAGE 2 - Selection and Appointment of Reviewers

  • Selection Criteria: Appointments are based on thematic expertise, field of work, and profiles on platforms such as Lattes and ORCID.

  • Qualifications: Reviewers must hold a doctoral degree or recognized notable expertise in the field.

  • Conflicting Reports: In case of substantially divergent reviews, the Editorial Team may appoint a third reviewer (who may be a member of the Editorial Board) to provide a tie-breaking report.

  • Suggestions: Guest Editors of Thematic Issues may suggest potential reviewers, subject to final validation by the Editorial Team.

Established Deadlines:

  • Response to the invitation: 7 days.

  • Submission of the review: 25 days.
    The Editorial Team reserves the right to extend deadlines or replace reviewers to ensure the efficiency of the process.

STAGE 3 - Post-Review Editorial Decisions
Based on the analysis of the review reports, the Editorial Team will make one of the following decisions:

  1. Accept: The text is accepted for publication, subject only to copyediting and formatting checks.

  2. Minor Revisions: Minor, well-defined corrections are required. The author must submit the revised version and a response letter detailing the changes within 15 days. Does not require a new peer review.

  3. Major Revisions: Significant changes to the content are required. The author must submit the revised version and a response letter detailing the changes within 30 days. The text will be sent back to the original reviewer(s) for a new round of evaluation.

  4. Reject: The manuscript presents serious theoretical, methodological, or ethical inconsistencies that prevent its publication. The review report must contain clear and well-justified reasons.

 

Submission Frequency Policy

The publication of more than one article or review by the same author (or in co-authorship) within a one-year interval is not permitted.