Diretrizes para Avaliadores

Ethics in evaluation

The goal of peer review should be to qualify the article for publication. RISI follows the double-blind peer review modality.

Ethical Principles for Evaluators

  1. Self-assessment (self-questioning about the level of mastery of the area covered by the manuscript to be evaluated);
  2. Punctuality (notification in cases of impossibility of evaluation of the manuscript / impossibility of meeting the requested deadline);
  3. Confidentiality (non-disclosure of the manuscript beyond those involved in the editorial process);
  4. Acknowledgment (acknowledgment and description of basic bibliography not used as a source of the evaluated manuscripts and of non-authorial ideas not correctly referenced);
  5. Non-evaluation (do not consider evaluating articles that present conflicts of interest or competition);
  6. Non-disclosure (of content not published without proper authorization from the author(s);
  7. Competence (standard of clear and thorough, albeit objective, comments);
  8. Non-identification (evaluate only anonymous manuscripts);
  9. Non-communication (not communicating directly with the authors without authorization from the editorial team);
  10. Commitment (notify any suspected ethical violations/irregularities);
  11. Anti-plagiarism (notify evidence of plagiarism);
  12. Publication (always provide constructive evaluation that encourages the author to publish their article);
  13. Specificity (being specific in your critique, even if objective);
  14. Truthfulness (providing honest, frank, and unbiased feedback on the manuscript to support your recommendation);
  15. Identity (respect the author's language and style, within the observed parameters);
  16. Scientific validation (suggestions must be based on valid academic/scientific reasons);

Review Credits

An author who has already received contributions from peer reviews to qualify an article submitted to a journal should consider being an evaluator and also contribute to the editorial activity of the journals.

The Ibero-American Journal of Integrative Health offers credits to reviewers through the issuance of an ad hoc evaluation certificate, publication of the evaluators' names on the journal's website, sending of acknowledgments by mail and the possibility of a discount on APC.

Evaluation criteria

            The purpose of the evaluation should be to qualify the work for publication. In this sense, it is desirable that the evaluator's gaze be oriented to contribute to the quality of the manuscript and not to the attribution of a label or to inspection.

The evaluations will be prepared following a specific form for each type of work submitted. At the end of the evaluation, the reviewer will present a recommendation for the manuscript. Recommendations can be:

  • Accept: The reviewer recommends that the work be accepted in its current form, without the need for revisions.
  • Accept with mandatory corrections: the reviewer recommends that the article be accepted, subject to the incorporation of corrections by the authors, without the need for a new round of evaluation.
  • Resubmit for evaluation: the reviewers make notes that intend to contribute to the qualification of the manuscript. After the authors incorporate the evaluators' considerations, a new round of evaluation will be initiated.
  • Submit to another journal: the reviewers recommend that the manuscript be sent to another journal, because it is out of scope or because it does not meet the minimum criteria for publication in this journal.
  • Reject: the authors recommend that the work not be accepted and present their arguments based on the criteria present in the evaluation form.

All manuscripts submitted to the journal and that are accepted in pre-evaluation are sent to at least two reviewers in the peer review stage. Despite the evaluators' recommendations, the editor's decision is sovereign, and may or may not accept the recommendations.