Peer Review Process

The evaluation process of Revista SOBECC has six stages carried out consecutively:

Step 1. Initial check. Submitted articles are analyzed by the editorial team to verify their adequacy to Revista SOBECC's publication guidelines, as well as to evaluate the existence of similarity with other previously published articles (plagiarism check with the Plagius Detector software). In case of inadequacy, the articles will be returned to the authors for correction or rejected in case of plagiarism identification.

Step 2. Editorial evaluation (desk review). Articles approved in stage 1 will be evaluated by the scientific editor or by a selected associate editor, who will analyze their adequacy to the journal's scope and editorial policy. In this step, the editor will evaluate the content of the article to verify if the subject is adequate to the journal's scope, if the article is well written, and if it conveys a significant contribution to the field of Perioperative Nursing. Based on the opinion of the editor at this stage, the article can be rejected or proceed to the next stage of the evaluation process.

Step 3. Peer review. Articles approved in step 2 will be forwarded to peer review, which will take place in a double-blind system, in which authors and reviewers are not identified throughout the process. Articles will be forwarded to two (2) reviewers who will analyze the technical and methodological content, using an evaluation instrument developed for this purpose. The reviewers' opinion will contain written feedback to the authors and the reviewer's decision, which can be categorized into the following types: (i) immediate approval, without revisions; (ii) minor revisions; (iii) major revisions; (iv) immediate rejection. If there is a discrepancy in the reviewers' decisions, the article will be forwarded to a third reviewer. The editor responsible for the submission will evaluate the reviews and indicate the changes to be made by the authors, as well as the deadline for doing so. The editor may also decide, depending on the reviews received, to immediately reject the article. 

Step 4. Modifications. The corrections suggested by the reviewers will be sent to the authors so that they can improve their manuscript. Changes made to the article should be highlighted in the text. In case of disagreement, the authors must explain the reasons in a letter to the editor. The editor will evaluate the modifications made by the authors and arguments and, if necessary, may return the article to the evaluators for another round of evaluation.

Step 5. Final decision. After the evaluation rounds have been completed and the authors have made the modifications, the responsible associate editor will decide on the approval or rejection of the article and forward his decision to the scientific editor. The scientific editor is responsible for evaluating the associate editor's recommendation, together with the reviewers' opinions, and deciding whether the article will be approved or rejected.

Step 6. Review. After approval, the article is revised for spelling and grammar by a specialized proofreader. Changes eventually made are forwarded for formal approval by the authors, before being forwarded for publication.

Authors will have 24 hours to approve the revision of the text in Portuguese. Failure to meet this deadline transfers the responsibility for approval to the editor. Additions or modifications will not be accepted after approval of the final revision.

Note: articles eventually submitted by Editors or members of the Editorial Board, or SOBECC will be evaluated with the same double-blind system. In the case of submissions by editors, the person responsible for the editorial process will always be another associated editor who does not have a conflict of interest with the author.