Peer Review Process

We adopt the double-blind peer review process (anonymous for both reviewers and authors). Texts are submitted online, and if they meet the publication guidelines, they are forwarded to the Executive Editors for initial evaluation.

At this stage, we assess the relevance of the submission to the journal's scope, considering formal aspects such as the significance and originality of the topic and the appropriateness and depth of the approach used. Only texts approved at this stage will be sent to the next stages of merit evaluation. Texts not approved at this stage will be forwarded by the Executive Editors to the Editor-in-Chief for the finalization of the process.

If approved in the initial evaluation by the Executive Editors, they will appoint two ad hoc reviewers, in accordance with the research theme, who must provide, within 30 days, a review with an analysis of the text and a recommendation of acceptance or rejection for publication, based on criteria such as the relevance of the content, argumentative consistency, theoretical and methodological coherence, structural adequacy, and contributions to advancing knowledge in the field.

Texts that undergo peer review, after the review process, will be returned to the authors with the editorial decision, indicating required revisions and/or the final decision of acceptance or rejection. In the case of required revisions, the texts will be returned to the authors for adjustments, and a new round of evaluation may be requested from the Executive Editors and/or ad hoc reviewers.

The Editor-in-Chief is responsible for communication with the Executive Editors and reviewers when necessary, and they have the final decision on each text submitted to the journal.

Once the review by ad hoc reviewers and Executive Editors is completed, the Editor-in-Chief will issue the final decision (in which the anonymity of the reviewers is preserved) expressed as follows:

          1. Accepted for Publication: The work is fully accepted for publication in the current issue of the journal, following the chronological completion criteria of the review process.

          2. Revisions Required: Modifications should be made by the author, who will receive the review with the recommended changes, returning the revised work within the stipulated deadline, with the changes marked in a different color for verification. In the case of a large number of requested changes, the article will be reevaluated by the Executive Editors and/or ad hoc reviewers after the author's adjustments, and it may be accepted or rejected.

          3. Rejected: Rejection of publication, with a justified explanation provided by the Editor-in-Chief, based on the analysis of each of the ad hoc reviewers, which is conveyed to the authors while preserving the reviewers' anonymity.

All prepared reviews will be made available to authors, ad hoc reviewers, and Executive Editors.

If the author disagrees with the received review, they may request a review from the journal's Editorial Office, which, if deemed appropriate, will forward the request to the same reviewers and Executive Editors or, depending on the case, request an evaluation from another ad hoc reviewer.