Peer Review Policy

1. General principles
Revista Neiba, Cadernos Argentina-Brasil adopts a rigorous peer-review process designed to ensure the academic quality, originality, relevance, and methodological soundness of the manuscripts it publishes. All research articles and other scholarly contributions subject to peer review are evaluated through a double-blind peer-review system, in which the identities of both authors and reviewers are concealed during the review process. Editorial decisions are based on academic criteria and on the manuscript's conformity with the Journal's aims and scope, editorial standards, and ethical policies.

2. Initial editorial screening
All submitted manuscripts undergo an initial screening by the editorial team before being sent for external peer review. At this stage, the editors assess whether the submission:

• falls within the Journal's aims and scope;
• complies with the Journal's submission and formatting requirements;
• presents sufficient academic relevance and originality;
• demonstrates an appropriate level of theoretical, methodological, and analytical development;
• meets basic standards of scholarly writing and research integrity;
• contains no evident ethical or editorial problems that would prevent further consideration.

Manuscripts that clearly fall outside the Journal's scope, do not meet minimum scholarly standards, or present significant formal or ethical deficiencies may be rejected at this stage without external review. The purpose of this initial screening is not to replace peer review, but to ensure that only manuscripts suitable for full academic evaluation are forwarded to external reviewers.

3. Anonymization
Before a manuscript is sent for peer review, identifying information concerning the authors is removed from the version made available to reviewers. Authors are responsible for preparing their manuscripts in a manner that does not reveal their identity unnecessarily, including through acknowledgments, self-identifying references, file metadata, or other information that may compromise anonymity. The editorial team may request additional anonymization when necessary.

The Journal uses a double-blind review procedure, meaning that reviewers do not know the identity of the authors, and authors do not know the identity of the reviewers. The Journal takes reasonable measures to preserve anonymity throughout the evaluation process.

4. Selection of reviewers
Each manuscript approved at the initial screening stage is normally evaluated by at least two external and independent reviewers with recognized expertise in the subject area of the submission. Reviewers are selected on the basis of their academic qualifications, research experience, and knowledge relevant to the manuscript.

Whenever possible, the Journal avoids appointing reviewers who have institutional, professional, personal, or other relationships with the authors that could create an actual, potential, or perceived conflict of interest. Reviewers are expected to declare any conflict of interest that may affect their ability to provide an independent and impartial assessment; when such a conflict exists, the reviewer should decline the invitation. The Journal seeks to ensure that peer review remains independent of the authors' institutional affiliations and of the editorial team.

5. Review criteria
Reviewers are asked to evaluate manuscripts according to academic and editorial criteria that may include:

• originality and relevance of the research question;
• clarity of the objectives and argument;
• adequacy of the theoretical framework;
• methodological rigor and transparency;
• quality and sufficiency of the evidence;
• coherence between evidence, analysis, and conclusions;
• engagement with relevant literature;
• contribution to the field;
• clarity and organization of the manuscript;
• conformity with the Journal's aims and scope;
• compliance with ethical and scholarly standards.

Reviewers should provide reasoned, constructive, and respectful comments that assist both the authors and the editorial team.

6. Reviewer recommendations
After completing the evaluation, reviewers may recommend one of the following outcomes, or an equivalent editorial category adopted by the Journal: acceptance; acceptance subject to minor revisions; major revisions and resubmission; rejection. Reviewer recommendations are advisory and do not constitute the final editorial decision. The editorial team considers the content and quality of the reviews, rather than simply counting recommendations.

7. Divergent reviews
When the evaluations of the two reviewers differ substantially, the editors may: examine the arguments presented in each report and make an editorial assessment; request clarification or additional comments from the reviewers; invite an additional independent reviewer; request revisions from the authors before reaching a final decision. The Journal does not automatically resolve conflicting reviews through a numerical majority; editorial judgment is used to determine the most appropriate course of action.

8. Revision by authors
When revisions are requested, authors must submit a revised version of the manuscript within the period established by the editorial team, and may also be asked to provide a response explaining how the reviewers' comments were addressed. Authors are expected to consider all substantive comments carefully; when they choose not to follow a particular recommendation, they should provide a clear academic justification. A request for revision does not imply acceptance of the manuscript.

9. Additional rounds of peer review
Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers for further assessment when the editors consider this necessary — for example, in cases involving substantial methodological or theoretical revisions, significant changes to the argument, data, or analysis, unresolved issues raised by the reviewers, or divergent assessments requiring further clarification. There is no predetermined maximum number of review rounds; the process continues for as long as the editorial team considers further evaluation academically justified and productive. The editors may also decide not to proceed with additional rounds if they conclude that the manuscript does not adequately address essential concerns.

10. Editorial decision
The final decision on publication rests with the editorial team. In reaching a decision, the editors consider the external peer-review reports; the authors' responses to reviewer comments; the quality of revisions made; the manuscript's academic contribution; its methodological and theoretical robustness; and its conformity with the Journal's aims, scope, editorial policies, and ethical standards. The possible final outcomes include acceptance, request for further revision, or rejection. The editors are not required to follow reviewer recommendations mechanically.

11. Editorial independence
Editorial decisions are made independently and exclusively on scholarly and editorial grounds. Decisions are not influenced by authors' nationality, institutional affiliation, academic status, gender, religion, political orientation, or other personal characteristics unrelated to the academic merits of the manuscript. Where an editor has a conflict of interest concerning a submission, responsibility for the manuscript is transferred to another qualified member of the editorial team.

12. Confidentiality
All manuscripts under review are treated as confidential documents. Reviewers must not disclose, share, reproduce, or use unpublished material contained in a manuscript for personal or third-party benefit. Editors likewise preserve the confidentiality of submissions, reviewer identities, and review reports in accordance with the Journal's editorial policies. Confidentiality obligations continue after the conclusion of the review process.

13. Reviewer conduct
Reviewers are expected to: provide objective, constructive, and academically justified evaluations; avoid personal criticism or discriminatory language; maintain confidentiality; disclose conflicts of interest; refrain from using privileged information obtained through peer review; notify the editors of any suspected plagiarism, duplicate publication, fabrication, falsification, inappropriate authorship, or other form of research or publication misconduct; respect agreed review deadlines or inform the editorial team promptly if they are unable to complete the review. Review reports should reflect the reviewer's own scholarly judgment.

14. Use of artificial intelligence in peer review
Because submitted manuscripts are confidential, reviewers must not upload manuscripts, substantial excerpts, unpublished data, or other confidential material to public or external generative artificial-intelligence systems where such use may compromise confidentiality or intellectual property. Any use of automated or AI-assisted tools must be compatible with the Journal's policies on confidentiality, research integrity, and publication ethics. Responsibility for the content of a review remains entirely with the reviewer; final editorial decisions remain under human responsibility and are not delegated to automated systems.

15. Ethical concerns raised during review
If a reviewer or editor identifies a possible ethical problem during the evaluation process — including suspected plagiarism, data fabrication or falsification, duplicate publication, inappropriate authorship, manipulation of citations, or other forms of misconduct — the manuscript may be temporarily removed from the ordinary review process while the matter is examined. Such cases are handled in accordance with the Journal's Publication Ethics and Malpractice Policy.

16. Purpose of peer review
The peer-review process is intended not only to support editorial decisions but also to contribute to the improvement of submitted research. The Journal seeks to ensure that the process is rigorous, fair, independent, constructive, and transparent in its procedures, while preserving the confidentiality and anonymity required by double-blind review.

Read also: https://www.e-publicacoes.uerj.br/neiba/etica-na-publicacao