Peer Review Process

A double-blind peer review process is adopted. 

The texts are submitted online and, if they are in accordance with the publication rules, they are sent to one of the Section Editors for an initial evaluation.

At this stage, the relevance of submission to the journal's scope are valued and the relevance and originality of the topic and the adequacy and density of the theoretical-methodological approach used is highlighted, among other formal aspects considered. Only texts approved at this stage will be forwarded to the next stages of merit evaluation. Texts not approved at this stage will be sent by the Section Editors to the Editor-in-Chief for finalization of the process.

If the text is approved in the initial evaluation by the Section Editor, he will indicate two ad hoc reviewers, according to the research topic, who shall issue an opinion with the analysis of the text and with the indication of review, accepted or not for publication, within 30 days, according to criteria of content relevance, argumentative consistency, theoretical and methodological coherence, structural adequacy and contributions to the advancement of knowledge in the area.

Texts entering into peer review after the review process will be forwarded to the authors with the editorial decision, indicating required reviews and/or final decision to accept and/or refuse. In the case of required reviews, the texts will be returned to the authors for adequacy and a new round of evaluation will be requested from Section Editors and/or ad hoc reviewers.

The Chief Editors are responsible for communicating with Section Editors and with reviewers when necessary. The final decision on each text submitted to the journal is up to them.

Once the analysis stage has been completed by the ad hoc reviewers and Section Editors, the Editor-in-Chief will issue the final opinion (in which the anonymity of the reviewers is preserved) and it will be expressed as follows:

1. Accepted for Publication: The work is accepted integrally for publication in one of the next issues of the journal, according to the chronological criterion of the conclusion of the analysis process.

2. Requested Reviews: The modifications must be made by the author, who will receive the opinion with the recommendations, returning the work within the stipulated period and with the changes made highlighted in a different color for the conference. In the case of a large number of requested changes, the article will be forwarded to Section Editors and/or ad hoc reviewers, after adapted by the author, for a new analysis, and it may be accepted or rejected.

3. Refused: Refusal of publication with the due justification given by the Editor-in-Chief, considering the analysis of each of the ad hoc reviewers, given to the authors, preserving the identity of the reviewers.

All opinions will be known to the authors, ad hoc reviewers, and Section Editors.

If the author disagrees with the opinion received, he may request a review from the journal's editor. If the editor evaluates the review as appropriate, he will forward the request to the same reviewers and section editors, or to the ad-hoc, depending on the case.