Blind Review Process
The Evaluation Process by Double Blind Review Process
The evaluation process of papers submitted to this journal is characterized by a dual rating system and involves two sequential steps: the desk review and the assessment by reviewers.
In the desk review, the editors gather and analyze, without author identification, submitted articles to assess their relevance to the journal's scope and their potential to make a significant contribution to the construction of knowledge in the field of study of this journal. When necessary, the editors involve members of the scientific committee in the process.
This evaluation occurs monthly. When an article does not comply with the policy of the journal, the authors are notified of this decision within sixty days of the date of submission. Articles approved in the desk review stage are forwarded to two of the journal’s expert reviewers for evaluation in a Double Blind Review system or to external researchers selected for their knowledge of the field of study of the article. The reviewers are professors and researchers associated to stricto sensu graduate programs of domestic or foreign educational institutions.
Articles are evaluated in a previously defined form, considering the relevance of the theme in question to innovation, the quality of the writing, the logical thread of the theoretical review, the use of appropriate bibliographical references, the suitability of the methodological procedures, the depth and consistency of the analysis, the outline of the conclusions and the relevance of the contributions. This stage of the evaluation process can last up to three months. When it is completed, the authors are notified of the editorial decision. When reviewers request adjustments to the article, the authors, at the discretion of the editor, may be allowed a period of thirty to sixty days for the incorporation of the suggested changes.
After the completion of the requested adjustments, articles are submitted to a spelling check, grammar review, reassessment of their compliance with the norms of the journal and final editing.
The conclusion of this process does not imply the immediate publication of the article. This decision is made by the editors, who determine the editorial policies, guidelines and the appropriate time for publication.
The Academic Editor decides whether reviews from additional experts are needed to evaluate the manuscript. After agreeing to review a manuscript, external reviewers are typically granted 10 days to complete the assignment. We will follow up with late reviewers and keep authors informed if there are any delays.
Will authors know who is reviewing their manuscript?
Reviewers’ identities are anonymous unless a reviewer indicates otherwise.
How many reviewers will a manuscript have?
The majority of this journal submissions are evaluated by 2 external reviewers, but it is up to the Academic Editor to determine the number of reviews required.
When reviews have been received, authors may see the status “Required Reviews Complete.” Please note that additional reviews may still be pending after this status is activated.
The final decision on a manuscript is made by the Academic Editor. The time to receive a decision depends on how long it takes for the editor to assess the reviews.
While the Academic Editor is entering the decision, authors may see the status “Decision in Process.” When the decision is final, authors will receive the notification by email and see the decision term in the submission system.
What are the possible decision outcomes?
After evaluation, the Academic Editor chooses between the following decisions:
- Minor Revision
- Major Revision
Authors who receive a decision of Minor Revision or Major Revision have 45 days to resubmit the revised manuscript.
In most cases, the revised manuscript will be re-assigned to the original Academic Editor. The Academic Editor will determine if additional input is needed from reviewers.
Recognize and Reward Your Peer Reviewers with ReviewerCredits
At ReviewerCredits, we are committed to promoting transparency and integrity in our editorial policies. As part of our dedication to upholding these principles, we have implemented a comprehensive editorial policy that incorporates the use of ReviewerCredits.
To ensure transparency, we disclose the ReviewerCredits system to all authors, reviewers, and readers. Our platform provides clear guidelines on how credits are earned and redeemed, fostering a transparent and fair process for all involved.
Integrity is at the core of our editorial process. We carefully select qualified and unbiased reviewers, maintaining the confidentiality of their identities while safeguarding against potential conflicts of interest. ReviewerCredits are awarded based solely on the completion of timely and constructive reviews.
We encourage reviewers to adhere to strict ethical guidelines during the peer review process, emphasizing the importance of unbiased and objective evaluations. Any breach of integrity or misconduct is rigorously investigated and may result in the withdrawal of ReviewerCredits and potential removal from our reviewer database.
Through ReviewerCredits, we aim to build a trustworthy academic community that values the contributions of our reviewers and fosters a culture of honesty and openness. By adhering to this policy, we strive to maintain the highest standards of integrity and transparency in all aspects of the editorial process.