GUIDELINES FOR EVALUATORS

Ethics in assessment

The objective of peer review should be to qualify the article for publication.

The journal follows the double- anonymous peer review method.

Ethical principles for evaluators

  • Self-assessment: self-questioning about the level of mastery of the area that covers the manuscript to be evaluated;
  • Punctuality: notification in cases of impossibility of evaluating the manuscript or impossibility of meeting the requested deadline;
  • Confidentiality: non-disclosure of the manuscript beyond those involved in the editorial process;
  • Recognition: recognition and description of basic bibliography not used as a source of evaluated manuscripts and of non-authorial ideas not correctly referenced;
  • Non-evaluation: do not consider evaluating articles that present conflicts of interest or competition;
  • Non-disclosure: of unpublished content without due authorization from the author/s;
  • Competence: standard of clear and thorough comments, despite being objective;
  • Non-identification: evaluate only anonymous manuscripts;
  • Non-communication: do not communicate directly with the authors without authorization from the editorial team;
  • Commitment: notify any suspected ethical violations or irregularities;
  • Anti-plagiarism: report signs of plagiarism;
  • Publication: always provide constructive evaluation that encourages the author to publish their article;
  • Specificity: be specific in your criticism, although objective;
  • Veracity: provide honest, frank, unambiguous feedback on the manuscript to support your recommendation;
  • Identity: respect the author’s language and style, within the observed parameters;
  • Scientific validation: Suggestions must be based on valid academic/scientific reasons.

Review credits

An author who has already received contributions from peer reviews to qualify an article submitted to a journal should consider becoming an evaluator and participating in the journals' editorial activity.

The journal offers credits to evaluators by issuing an ad hoc evaluation certificate, publishing the evaluators' names on the journal's website and sending thanks by post.

Rating criteria

The purpose of the evaluation must be to qualify the work for publication. In this sense, it is desirable that the evaluator's gaze is focused on contributing to the quality of the manuscript and not on assigning a label or monitoring it.

Assessments will be prepared following a specific form for each type of work submitted. At the end of the evaluation, the evaluator will present a recommendation for the manuscript. Recommendations could be:

  • Accept: the evaluator recommends that the work be accepted in its current form, without the need for corrections.
  • Accept with mandatory corrections: the evaluator recommends that the article be accepted subject to the incorporation of corrections by the authors, without the need for a new round of evaluation.
  • Submit again for evaluation: evaluators make notes that aim to contribute to the qualification of the manuscript. After the authors incorporate the evaluators' considerations, a new round of evaluation will begin.
  • Submit to another journal: the evaluators recommend that the manuscript be sent to another journal, as it is out of scope or does not meet the minimum criteria for publication in this journal.
  • Reject: the authors recommend that the work not be accepted and present their arguments based on the criteria present in the evaluation form.

All manuscripts sent to the journal that are accepted in pre-evaluation are sent to at least two evaluators in the peer review stage. Despite the evaluators' recommendations, the editor's decision is sovereign and may or may not accept the recommendations.

 

Fonte: Editora Ibero-Americana (2024).