After the editorial team has verified that the manuscript is suitable for the focus and scope of the Journal and that it complies with the standards set out on the website, the articles are evaluated using the double-blind process.

The review process is identical for all articles, including those previously made available on SciELO Preprints.

In the case of preprints, reviewers are informed of the authorship of the manuscript (single-blind). When submitting an article deposited in preprint repositories, authors agree to this review format.

Manuscripts are evaluated by two external reviewers of the Journal, with proven scientific production in the area of ​​knowledge of the research, from national and foreign educational and/or research institutions, whose selection is made through keywords of the article. When indicating a keyword, the section editor will choose from among the registered consultants two with production in the area of ​​the article to be evaluated.

The selected consultants receive an evaluation request via email to the email address registered on the Journal's website, with information about the deadline to indicate whether they accept to carry out the evaluation and the deadline for completing the evaluation. If the selected consultant informs that they are not available for the evaluation, another consultant in the area is selected. As the deadline for carrying out the evaluation approaches, the consultant receives an automatic email with an evaluation reminder; if they do not evaluate within the deadline, they will be replaced.

The manuscript that receives a favorable and an unfavorable opinion for publication is forwarded to a third reviewer, also anonymous and external to the Journal. Authors can follow the evaluation process of their submissions in OJS, using a login and password for access, and it is possible to access the opinions.

The reviewers are provided with guidelines to be followed, which include the following aspects: originality of the article; relevance of the discussion, data reported, interpretation, methodology, and references cited; clarity and adequacy of the title, abstract, keywords, introduction, development, and conclusion.

The acceptance of the article may be total or subject to reformulations and corrections proposed by the reviewers and editors. If the article is approved subject to reformulations and/or changes, these must be made by the authors within the deadline set by the editorial team and following the guidelines sent together with the reviews.

Authors must indicate in the manuscript all changes made and justify if any suggested change was not made. Changes to the structure and content proposed during the evaluation process will only be made with the consent of the authors.

Articles not changed following the recommendations of the reviewers and the editorial team or submitted after the established deadline may be rejected by the editorial team.

Approved articles are no longer in the “Under evaluation” status and are now in the “Under editing” status, the stage in which the text is being prepared for publication. During this process, authors may be asked for further information. This process occurs both in the evaluation of articles submitted in a continuous flow and in the evaluation of articles submitted to thematic calls.

Acceptance of a manuscript does not guarantee its immediate publication. Once approved, its publication will respect the criteria of submission date and geographic location of the authors' affiliation institutions. To avoid endogenous bias and to ensure the diversity of authors of published articles, this journal will only publish another article by the same author after a one-year interval.

• Evaluation Guidelines;
• Preview;
• Close Panel;
• Evaluation Form;
• Form Items;
• Form Preview.

Flowchart of the submission, evaluation, and publication process