Peer Review
Peer Review Process
The material submitted for publication is initially reviewed by the Editorial Board of Revista Sítio Novo, with the assistance of the Editor-in-Chief and/or Assistant Editor, to ensure that the texts comply with publication standards and other procedures relevant to the review and approval process, in accordance with the author's guidelines, as set out in the templates available on the website. If deemed appropriate, the material is forwarded to expert reviewers in the field.
Manuscripts under evaluation will be forwarded to at least two expert reviewers in the field, initially without author identification, who are part of the Scientific Editorial Board.
Manuscripts under evaluation by Revista Sítio Novo will be sent to reviewers within a maximum period of 60 days from the complete receipt of the submission.
Reviewers will have 8 days to accept the review invitation and, upon acceptance, a maximum of 21 days to evaluate the manuscript. After this period, the editor or a member of the Editorial Board will be free to replace the reviewer.
Exceptionally, if the Scientific Editorial Board does not meet the established evaluation deadline, ad hoc reviewers with at least a master’s degree may be invited to assess the manuscript submitted to the journal.
The journal adopts a double-blind peer review process. However, authors may choose to open the evaluation process, in accordance with open science principles, by completing the Open Science Compliance Form, a mandatory document for manuscript submission.
The open review will be granted if the reviewer agrees, as indicated in the evaluation form, after the initial assignment under the double-blind system. If both parties agree, the open review will be recorded in the system.
The Editorial Board, the Editor-in-Chief, or the Associate Editor will ensure that, preferably, the reviewers for each manuscript belong to institutions different from that of the authors.
Among the evaluation criteria, the following are highlighted: alignment with the editorial scope, relevance of the topic, and potential for publication.
Reviewers will have three possible recommendations:
a) Accept: the manuscript is scheduled for publication;
b) Mandatory revisions: the manuscript is returned to the author(s) for adjustments and resubmission, and will undergo final evaluation, possibly resulting in acceptance or rejection;
c) Reject: the manuscript will not be considered for publication.
In accordance with Open Science and as a way to adopt a more transparent review policy, reviewers may:
I - Choose, in the evaluation form, to disclose or withhold their identity during the review process. The journal adopts a blind review policy but allows reviewers to reveal their identity if they agree and if the authors choose to know.
II - After the review process, the evaluation may be shared with the authors (in case of rejection) or made publicly available (if the manuscript is accepted for publication). In the latter case, the review will be published alongside the article. The reviewer may still choose to remain anonymous. Thus, reviewers may choose one of the following options in the evaluation form:
a) Authorize the disclosure of their identity as reviewer in the published article;
b) Authorize the disclosure of both identity and review on the journal's website;
c) Prefer to remain anonymous.
After peer review, the final evaluation result will be sent to the authors, including revision requests and other relevant comments.
Authors will have a deadline defined by the Journal to submit the final version of the manuscript from the date of the editorial decision notification. Failure to meet this deadline may result in rejection of the article.
The technical and scientific quality of the manuscript will be one of the evaluation criteria. The author must present correct concepts, depth in theoretical approach, scientific rigor, and cite key references related to the topic.
Based on the evaluations of at least two reviewers and their own analysis, the Editor-in-Chief or a member of the Editorial Board will recommend acceptance or rejection of the manuscript.
Rejected manuscripts will be returned to the authors. Requests for reconsideration of negative decisions or for re-evaluation by other reviewers will not be accepted.
Further information regarding submission and publication can be found in the Author Guidelines, available on the journal's website, along with the template models.
