Peer Review
The Revista de Estud(i)os sobre Fichte adopts peer review as a method for validating submitted manuscripts, ensuring scientific quality and the integrity of published research.
The terminology used to describe the review process follows the international standardization of the ANSI/NISO Z39.106-2023 (Standard Terminology for Peer Review), which establishes clear categories for different review models and practices.
Identity Transparency
The journal adopts as its standard practice the double anonymized model, in which authors and reviewers remain anonymous to each other throughout the entire review process.
However, we offer, on an optional basis and upon agreement of all parties involved, the adoption of the following models:
- Single anonymized: authors are identified, but reviewers remain anonymous.
- All identities visible: authors and reviewers mutually know each other’s identities from the beginning of the review process.
Rule for preprints: Manuscripts originating from preprints have their authorship already publicly available, which makes the double anonymized model unfeasible. In such cases, the review automatically adopts the single anonymized model.
The choice of review model is registered by authors at the time of submission, through the Open Science Document.
Interaction between Authors, Reviewers and Editors
In the standard double anonymized model, all communications between authors and reviewers are mediated exclusively by the section editor or the editor-in-chief, ensuring mutual anonymity.
However, in a specific form, we offer authors and reviewers the possibility of direct interaction, provided all parties agree. This interaction may occur:
- Through the journal’s electronic system (OJS);
- Through email exchange, under the supervision of the editorial team.
Direct interaction may take place with anonymous or visible identities, according to the chosen review model. Interest in this modality is registered in the forms provided by the editorial team.
Publication of Review Information
At the end of each article published, the journal provides the following information about the review process:
Editorial team responsible: The name, ORCID iD and affiliation of all members of the editorial team who had a relevant decision regarding the publication of the manuscript are included in the post-textual metadata of the article, ensuring transparency of the decision-making process.
Review summaries: The summary of the reviews that led to the approval of the article is published at the end of the manuscript. This publication occurs upon the express authorization of each reviewer, registered in a specific form.
Reviewer identification: If the reviewer authorizes, their identity (full name, ORCID iD and affiliation) is published together with the review summary. Reviewers may opt for:
- Publication with identification (name, ORCID and affiliation);
- Anonymous publication (only the text of the summary);
- Non-publication of the summary.
The reviewer’s choice is sovereign and strictly respected, and does not influence the evaluation of the manuscript nor the relationship with the journal.
About Peer Review
The peer review process is conducted based on the following principles:
Objectivity: Reviewers must evaluate manuscripts impartially, grounding their criticisms and suggestions in scientific arguments, without personal attacks or discrimination of any kind.
Confidentiality: Manuscripts received for review are treated as confidential documents. Reviewers must not share the manuscript’s content, discuss it with third parties, or contact authors without authorization from the editorial team.
Conflict of interest: Reviewers must declare to the editorial team any potential conflict of interest before accepting to review a manuscript. If there is a competitive, collaborative or institutional relationship with the authors, the reviewer must decline the review.
Ethical responsibility: In addition to scientific evaluation, reviewers must be alert to possible misconduct, such as plagiarism, self-plagiarism, fabrication or falsification of data, immediately communicating any suspicion to the editorial team.
Timeliness: Reviewers who do not feel qualified to evaluate the manuscript or who cannot meet the established deadline must immediately communicate their refusal to the editorial team.
