The contributions sent are subjected to peer review, using the double-blind modality, that is, the manuscripts are received by the journal editor and then sent to external and internal evaluators of the publishing institution, and both the evaluators and authors remain anonymous during the evaluation process. The editor receives the report of the arbitrators through the Refereeing Form and subsequently informs the author of the opinion, not detailing the name of the arbitrators. This Arbitration system guarantees greater impartiality of the decision.

The reviewers can recommend to the Editorial Committee that the article be:

  • Accepted.
  • Accepted with modifications.
  • Rejected.

The review process will never take more than three months from receipt of the document. If the work was classified as reviewable, the authors can to carry out a review of the document, which will be returned to the editors within a month. The editors will decide or not it is necessary to send the document to the arbitrators again, having the capacity to decide the final opinion. No more than two reviews per document will be allowed except in exceptional cases. The rejection rate in the entire journal evaluation process is 30%.

In cases of controversy, that is, when one of the two evaluating reviewer have an opinion of accepted and the other of rejected or accepted with modifications, an evaluation request is sent to a third reviewer and after its verdict, the Committee Editorial weighs the three evaluations and will send the verdict of accepted, minor revision, major revision or rejected.

In the event of suspicion or non-compliance with some of the good ethical practices established in the journal Code and other cases of Controversy, the procedure will be followed as established in the Flow Diagrams of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) for each case.

To consult the complete arbitration sheet, you can download the PDF file available at the address: