Peer Review Policy

The first stage of evaluation is the selection of articles according to editorial criteria. The Editorial Board is the body responsible for this stage.

The second stage is the opinion of external ad hoc consultants who are experts in the topics covered. The works will be sent for evaluation without identifying authorship to two or more reviewers.

The final decision to accept or reject the article after review reviews rests with the Editor-in-Chief. And, after acceptance of the manuscript, a graphic proof will be sent to the corresponding author's email. Authors must forward the graphic proof with the necessary corrections within, at most, 48 hours after receipt.

A Review Thank You is issued to reviewers upon successful review of the manuscript and a list of reviewers' names is published annually.

Revista Saúde e Pesquisa reinforces its dedication to academic excellence by strictly following the rule of involving evaluators external to the publishing institution in its peer review process, ensuring impartiality and quality in the evaluation of each submitted manuscript.

Ethical Guidelines for Scientific Journal Reviewers

Basic Guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)

Peer review is a crucial step in the editorial process, aiming to guarantee the integrity of the academic record. Reviewers, essential in this process, often assume this role without specific guidance about their obligations. To minimize this problem, COPE establishes ethical guidelines for reviewers during the review process. These guidelines are applicable to journals in all areas of knowledge and serve as a reference for journals and their editors when searching for reviewers, in addition to assisting academic institutions in training students and researchers.

Expectations and Obligations of Reviewers

During the Invitation to Review:

Respond promptly to the invitation, especially if they are unable to accept.
Declare lack of sufficient knowledge or experience in the subject matter.
Accept review of a manuscript only if they can return it within the established deadline or agree on a new deadline with the journal, informing them of the need for its extension.
Declare any potential or actual conflicts of interest in relation to the journal or article.
Follow the journals' editorial policies regarding conflicts of interest.

During the Review Process:

Maintain confidentiality and do not reveal details of the manuscript.
Avoid using the information obtained for your own benefit or to harm others.
Be objective and constructive in your comments, avoiding personal criticism.
Recognize and avoid conflicts of interest not evident at the beginning of the review.
Review only aspects of the manuscript within your area of expertise.
Keep all review details confidential.
Notify the journal of any observed ethical irregularities and do not personally investigate unless requested by the journal.

When Preparing the Report:

Be clear, objective and constructive, providing feedback that helps authors improve their manuscript.
Avoid derogatory comments or unfounded accusations.
Be specific in criticism and provide evidence for your claims.
Suggest changes to improve the clarity of writing.
Do not suggest the inclusion of quotes from the reviewer or his associates for reasons that are not valid academic or technological.

Expectation After the Review Process

Continue to maintain the confidentiality of manuscript details and comments.
Respond promptly to contacts from the magazine on issues related to its opinion.
Be open to reviewing re-submitted manuscripts as requested by the journal.

These COPE guidelines aim to support reviewers in their important role of ensuring the integrity and quality of scientific content, maintaining objectivity, confidentiality and impartiality throughout the review process.

Source: Editorial, E. (2013). Ethical guidelines for reviewers of scientific journals: Basic guidelines from the Committee on Publication Ethics—COPE. Psicologia USP, 24(3), 363-368. https://doi.org/10.1590/psicousp.v24i3.78932

Assessment Guidelines

All reviewers receive clear and standardized guidelines to ensure consistency and rigor in the review process, as follows:

Dear reviewer, upon receiving the article, we ask that you carry out the following action:

1. Comments can be made directly in the body of the document in question;

2. The document to be evaluated has a doc extension, therefore it can be edited in Word;

3. We request you to make all pertinent considerations, always seeking to make the article more informative for the proposed area;

4. Only original works that contribute in some way to the knowledge of the scientific community should be accepted, always with the aim of capturing a greater number of original articles that could result in great interest in the scientific community and, consequently, in a greater impact;

5. During the evaluation process of articles submitted to Revista Saúde e Pesquisa it is necessary to consider the aspects listed below:

01- Is the topic covered relevant and is the work original?