Peer review

Peer Review Process

The FisiSenectus Journal adopts the peer review procedure. The estimated evaluation time is 4 to 8 months, and the publication time is 6 to 12 months.

The received manuscripts that comply with the standards established in the “Instructions to Authors” and that are featured in accordance with the editorial policy will be forwarded to two scientific evaluators from the areas of knowledge to which the study belongs, for peer review in a blinded manner (peer review). Evaluators are chosen according to their knowledge and experience regarding the topic of the article. They will judge the acceptability of the manuscript regarding its originality, pertinence, as well as clinical and methodological relevance. The editorial board made up of national and international evaluators is constantly updated.

In order to evaluate the manuscript, in addition to publication standards, the following items will be considered: topicality and relevance of the topic, originality, scientific consistency and compliance with ethical aspects. The authors are responsible for the veracity and originality of the work. The opinions and concepts expressed in the works, as well as the accuracy, adequacy and origin of bibliographic references, are the sole responsibility of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of the Editorial Board.

The editorial assistant coordinates the communication of information between authors and scientific evaluators, and the editor-in-chief is responsible for deciding which articles will be published based on the recommendations made by the evaluators. When rejected, articles will be accompanied by a justification from the editor.

Evaluation process:

  1. Authors submit their works on the website of the journal.
  2. The editorial assistant carries out the initial check and, if it is not within the standards, the article is returned to the authors so that they can carry out the adequacy.
  3. The manuscript is assigned to two or more evaluators, with a message containing the title and the abstract of the submission, as well as an invitation to access the system and inform their availability or unavailability to carry out the evaluation.
  4. Evaluators will have access to the manuscript (which does not contain any identification of authorship) and supplementary documents only after accepting the invitation. The opinion is submitted after filling in a standard evaluation form.
  5. The editorial assistant receives the opinions and forwards the recommendations made by the evaluators to the editor-in-chief, who recommends forwarding the evaluation to the authors for review or makes a final decision. In case of divergence of opinions, the manuscript is forwarded to a third evaluator for arbitration.
  6. If approved or remains in publication conditions after the suggested reviews, the editorial assistant contacts the authors and informs the decision on the submitted article.
  7. The final version is sent to the author for checking before publication, with an express response deadline and is then published on the FisiSenectus website address.

-All articles published by the FisiSenectus Journal are identified on the Digital Object Identifier (DOI) platform.

Evaluation Guidelines

Before accepting or declining an invitation to carry out an evaluation, consider the following points:

Does the manuscript correspond to your area of expertise? Only agree to evaluate it if you feel you can provide a quality review.

Are there any conflicts of interest? If so, report it to the editor.

Respond to the invitation as soon as possible. Delaying your decision slows down the whole process, regardless of whether or not you accept the evaluation. If you decline the invitation, provide suggestions for alternative evaluators.

Evaluating a manuscript may take time and a lot of work; before committing yourself, make sure you can meet the deadline.

When accepting an evaluation, keep the materials you receive as confidential documents. This means that you cannot share them with anyone without prior authorization from the editor, nor share information about the manuscript with anyone without permission from the editors and authors. For more information, read the guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) - https://publicationethics.org/files/Ethical_Guidelines_For_Peer_Reviewers_2.pdf.

Your evaluation will help the editor to publish or reject the article. Therefore, your general opinion and comments are essential. Your comments, however, must be courteous and constructive, and must not include personal information. In the case of attached opinions or comments made on the article itself, do not forget to remove any identification of authorship.

When evaluating an article, please carefully fill in the evaluation form, which has the following structure:

Survey:

  • Has the article scientific content and merit (relevant to the area of knowledge)?
  • Is the title adequate, clear and concise?
  • Is the abstract well-structured and complies with the standards of the journal (Introduction, Objective, Methodology or Materials and Methods, Results and Final Considerations or Conclusion – 150 to 250 words)?
  • Does the introduction adequately introduce and justify the content of the article? Does it mention the objective of the study?
  • Are the objectives clearly formulated?
  • Is the methodology adequately described (type of study, sample and population, data collection and analysis procedures and instruments)?
  • Are the results and discussion justified by the data and in line with the objectives? Are they consistent and adequate to the type of work?
  • Does the conclusion or final considerations clearly summarize the main results of the research? Are the limitations of the study discussed?
  • Are the references adequate and in line with the standards of the journal (Vancourver)?
  • Are the tables, charts and figures clear and are there no duplications of information? Is it formatted according to the standards of the journal?

Evaluation result:

[  ] Publish without review.

[  ] Publish after the indicated reviews.

[  ] Publication not recommended.

[ ] Publication not recommended in this current format, but may be resubmitted after reformulation.

Peer reviewers: If you are interested in contributing to the journal as an evaluator/reviewer, send us an email informing your areas of expertise and a link to your Curriculum Lattes.