Modalities, Peer Review Politics and Process

Mediações operates with two evaluation modalities: the Double-Blind Review method and Informed Peer Review, also known as Open Peer Review. The method by which the manuscript will be assessed is chosen by the authors, who indicate one of the two modalities practiced by the journal in the submission form. In the case of opting for iinformed peer review, authors fill out a specific assessment form provided by SciELO. Similarly, reviewers can choose, when taking on the manuscript evaluation in our system, between informed peer review or Double-Blind. However, both options, open or blind, follow the same procedures and evaluation processes described below, in accordance with the principles of open science.

When reviewers opt for informed peer review, their names and ORCID are also identified at the end of the published article. If reviewers opt for the Double-Blind method, the section editor responsible for the processing and evaluation of the manuscripts (along with their ORCID) is identified at the end of the published article, ensuring transparency and trust in the procedures adopted by the journal.

Finally, Mediações ensures authors and reviewers the option to reveal their identities in the interaction between authors and their respective reviewers when there is a mutual demand and agreement.

On the screening and review process of manuscripts

The manuscripts pass through two preliminary phases. In the first, before reaching the section editors, they are checked for compliance with the journal’s criteria (number of characters, co-authors, degree, quarantine rules, etc.), plagiarism and self-plagiarism, the use of generative artificial intelligence (AI), focus and scope.

In the second (called ‘screening’), under responsibility of a section editor, the texts are checked to ensure they are previously unpublished and that they match the journal’s editorial policy and profile. The average time to prepare and sort the manuscripts until they are forwarded to the referees is about 1 (one) month.

The manuscript must be analytic in nature and possess a concise and coherent structure in compliance with the usual norms of a scientific article.  When these criteria are not met, the manuscript will be rejected. When these criteria are met, the manuscript will be sent to the ‘ad hoc’ reviewers, who must evaluate the manuscript (see Evaluation Form).

Texts are evaluated by at least two ad hoc reviewers, both specialists on the theme. The average time for evaluating submissions is 5 (five) months and the average time for publication of submitted articles is 8 (eight) months.  Further details on the  processing of articles can be found in our Privacy Statement.

If accepted by the section editor, submissions are forwarded to reviewers. Submitted texts are analysed by at least two ad hoc reviewers (double-blind peer review method), specialists in the theme, invited by Mediações to issue their reviews (see Evaluation Form). In the case of disagreement between the two reviewers, a third evaluation will be necessarily requested. It is up to the section editor responsible for the article to choose the reviewers who will evaluate the manuscript, as well as to communicate the editorial decision to the author. The article may be accepted without need for alterations, accepted on condition that the requested corrections are made, or rejected.

If the manuscript has been accepted without need for alterations, it is the section editor’s responsibility to: 1 – send the manuscript to the associate editors.

If the manuscript has been accepted on condition that the requested corrections are made, it is also the section editor’s responsibility to:

1 – confirm that the author is willing to make these corrections within a reasonable time period stipulated by the section editor;

2 – forward the manuscript to the reviewer(s), if the latter have opted on the review form to check whether the alterations have been made to their satisfaction; or carry out this verification when the reviewers are unavailable to do so;

3 – inform the author of the final decision;

4 – if approved, send the manuscript to the associate editors.

If the manuscript has been rejected, is the section editor’s responsibility to:

1 – contact the author, sending the reviews rejecting the article and

2 – inform the associate editors of the rejection, also sending the reviews attesting to the decision.

About the Peer Review Process

Articles submitted to dossiers, and the rolling submission process initially undergo a screening stage, in which the organizers or section editors conduct a first evaluation of the material, focusing primarily on the article’s alignment with the dossier or the journal’s editorial line. After the screening of the manuscripts, the texts are sent to reviewers, who provide three possible responses regarding the publication: the article may be accepted without the need for changes, accepted with mandatory revisions, or rejected. If the reviewers have indicated on the Evaluation Form that they wish to see the revised version, the article is sent back to them for a final editorial decision; if they have indicated they do not wish to review the revised version, the final editorial decision is made by the organizers or section editors, who will check whether the required revisions have been satisfactorily addressed.

In line with Open Science principles, Mediações offers both authors and reviewers the option of open or double-blind peer review. If the authors opt for open peer review, the review request is sent to reviewers without anonymization; if they choose double-blind review, the submission is anonymized accordingly. Likewise, reviewers can, when filling out the Evaluation Form, choose open peer review, disclosing their name: (i) either during the review process, so that their identification will be open at all stages of the process, or (ii) only after the article is published, if accepted, in which case the reviewer’s name will appear on the last page of the published article, next to the name of the section editor or organizer. If the reviewer chooses not to disclose their identity at any stage, the name of the individuals responsible for the evaluations (organizers or section editors) will be published on the last page of the article.

Finally, Mediações also consults its reviewers about the publication of their review reports if the article is approved for publication. If they agree to the publication, the reviews are made available online, alongside the .pdf and .xml versions of the article.