Guidelines and Peer Review

Guidelines and Peer Review

Preliminary Check

Every contribution submitted to Revista Aurora undergoes, firstly, a preliminary assessment by the Editors that analyzes the suitability of the work according to the Journal's editorial line, its adequacy to the scope, aspects such as contribution and originality of the text, as well as, by checking Similarity/ Plagiarism (iThenticate/Turnitin) and artificial intelligence.

Peer review

Submissions that pass through the editorial verification process are sent to two members of the Journal’s Scientific Council or ad hoc experts specialized in the topic. A third reviewer may be consulted in case of discrepancies between the evaluations as an arbitration criterion. The reviews will serve as a basis for the final decision of the editorial committee. The modifications and/or corrections suggested by the reviewers regarding the content and/or writing are forwarded to the authors, who will have a specified period to make the required changes or justify their retention.

Review System

The review system adopted by the Revista Aurora is double-blind: the names of the reviewers will remain confidential, and the names of the authors will also be omitted from the reviewers. However, the journal offers the option of open evaluation to those involved in the process. When submitting the article, authors can choose to allow open peer review, opt for the publication of the reviewers' comments in case the manuscript is approved, and indicate whether they wish to interact with the reviewers during the evaluation process. Reviewers are also given the option on the evaluation form to open the peer review process, to interact with the authors during the evaluation of the manuscript, and to publish their comments with or without the identification of names, in case the manuscript is approved. All open review procedures will be conducted with the mutual consent of both reviewers and authors.

Deadlines

The average time between submission and publication of articles, when accepted, is six months, in order to carefully complete the stages of authors' final reviews, grammatical review, standardization, layout, and editing.

Conflict of interests

Authors or reviewers must declare possible conflicts of interest in the submission or evaluation. In the case of authors, such conflict may take the form of some direct or institutional relationship with the editorial board, with possible evaluators, such as, for example, belonging to the same department as one of the editors, being or having been mentored or mentored by members of the editorial board. In the case of reviewers, some conflicts may be expressed by the knowledge or possibility of effective participation in the composition of the manuscript, having been supervised or supervised the work sent, being from the same institution as the authors or having some degree of kinship with one of them. Such elements do not prevent the submission or publication of the article, but will be directed in such a way as to avoid possible errors in fairness in the process.

Choice of reviewers

Reviewers are chosen from the database of reviewers registered in the journal's system. The reviewers are doctors, linked to postgraduate programs in Social Sciences and their related areas.

Revision criteria

The criteria for evaluating articles take into account relevance of the topic, originality of the contribution in the Journal's thematic areas, clarity of the text, adequacy of the bibliography, structuring and theoretical development, methodology used, conclusions and contribution offered to knowledge in the area.

The assessment is made based on the Assessment Form

 Guiding questions for the objective evaluation of the submission

General appreciation of the article

Analysis of the importance of the article for the area of ​​knowledge included.

Analysis of the scientific basis and method.

Are the objectives of the article well defined?

Does the text have clarity, coherence and objectivity?

Was the methodology followed exposed?

Is the article divided into sections and has an internal structure?

Are the arguments presented rigorous and dense?

Does the analysis performed correspond to the data presented?

Does the article meet the objectives it set out to achieve?

Is the article summary adequate? (It has objective, method and conclusion of the work).

The evaluator assigns a quality concept to the article, namely: excellent, good, regular, bad or terrible, which, together with the requirements listed above, fulfills a didactic role and contributes to the improvement of the work.

Tax Rate

The article rejection rate in 2023 was 40%.