Blind Peer Review Policy

Objective

The Cadernos ESP blind peer review process aims to ensure impartial, rigorous, and ethical evaluation of submitted manuscripts, promoting scientific quality and publication integrity. This process helps guarantee that published articles meet standards of originality, public health relevance, methodological clarity, and social impact.

Blind Review Process

  1. Submission and Initial Screening

    • Upon submission, the manuscript undergoes an initial screening by the editorial team to ensure compliance with journal guidelines and eligibility criteria. Manuscripts that are incomplete or out of scope may be returned to authors for adjustment or declined without peer review.

  2. Originality Check

    • In line with best editorial practices, Cadernos ESP conducts an originality check to identify possible cases of plagiarism or self-plagiarism. Manuscripts with originality concerns may be returned to authors for adjustments or rejected.

  3. Reviewer Selection

    • Manuscripts that pass the initial screening are assigned to two or more independent reviewers with relevant expertise in the manuscript’s subject area. Reviewer selection considers knowledge of the topic, avoiding conflicts of interest to maintain impartiality.

  4. Double-Blind Peer Review

    • The peer review is conducted under a double-blind peer review format, where:
      • Author identity: author information (name, affiliation, address) is hidden from reviewers to prevent bias.
      • Reviewer identity: reviewer names are not disclosed to authors, preserving impartiality and independence.

  5. Evaluation Criteria

    • Reviewers are asked to assess the manuscript based on criteria such as:
      • Relevance and contribution of the study to public health.
      • Methodological quality and ethical compliance.
      • Rigor in data analysis and clarity of results.
      • Originality and innovation.
      • Coherence and clarity in the scientific argument.
      • Compliance with Cadernos ESP editorial guidelines.

  6. Comments and Recommendations

    • Reviewers should provide a clear, well-founded, and constructive review, including:
      • Observations on strengths and suggestions for improvements.
      • Detailed justifications for recommendations to accept, minor or major revision, or reject the manuscript.

  7. Editorial Decision

    • Based on the reviewers' feedback, the Scientific Editor or Executive Editor makes the final decision.

    • The editorial decision is communicated to the authors along with the reviewers' comments. Authors may request clarification if they have questions about the feedback.

Conflict of Interest Statement

Reviewers and editors must declare any conflicts of interest that may compromise the impartiality of the review, whether personal, financial, professional, or ideological. Reviewers who identify a potential conflict are asked to inform the editor and, if necessary, decline the manuscript.

Transparency and Feedback

To ensure transparency and quality in the review process, Cadernos ESP maintains open communication with authors and reviewers throughout the evaluation stages. Authors are encouraged to provide feedback on the editorial process, aiding in continuous improvement.

Ethics and Integrity Assurance

Cadernos ESP is committed to best practices in publication ethics and integrity, respecting publication guidelines and ethical standards recommended by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and other relevant bodies. Cases of misconduct, such as plagiarism and data manipulation, are thoroughly investigated and may result in article retraction or immediate rejection of the manuscript.