Peer-review

Peer Review Editorial Process

1. Invitation for Review

Manuscripts submitted to RPMGF are reviewed by at least two experts suggested by the section editor during the preliminary check. Reviewers are asked to assess the manuscript's quality and provide a recommendation on whether it should be accepted, revised, or rejected.

RPMGF requests invited reviewers to:

  1. Accept or decline invitations as promptly as possible in a maximum of 7 days (based on the title and abstract of the manuscript).
  2. Propose alternative reviewers if they cannot accept the invitation.
  3. Request an extension if more time is needed to provide a comprehensive report.

2. Potential Conflicts of Interest

Reviewers are requested to declare any potential conflicts of interest or existing doubts via a simple email to the RPMGF secretariat. Potential conflicts of interest include (but are not limited to):

  1. The reviewer works at the same institution as one of the authors.
  2. The reviewer is a co-author, collaborator, joint grant holder, or has any other academic connection with any of the authors in the last three years.
  3. The reviewer has a close personal relationship, rivalry, or animosity with any of the authors.
  4. The reviewer may, in some way, have financial gains or losses related to the publication of the article.
  5. The reviewer has other non-financial conflicts of interest (political, personal, religious, ideological, academic, intellectual, commercial, or others) with any of the authors.

Reviewers should disclose any conflicts of interest that may be perceived as bias in favor of or against the article or authors.

It is not considered a conflict of interest if the reviewer is asked to evaluate a manuscript they have previously reviewed for another journal, but they should include this information for the section editor.

Reviewers are encouraged to read COPE's recommendations for peer review.

3. Confidentiality Statement

RPMGF uses a double-blind review process. Until the article is published, reviewers must maintain confidentiality regarding the manuscript's content, including the abstract. Reviewers should also take care not to reveal their identity to the authors, either in comments or in the metadata of files submitted in Microsoft Word or PDF format.

4. Review Reports

The review report should be prepared in Portuguese, English, or Spanish, according to the manuscript's submission language.

The review report must be submitted online through RPMGF's personal platform within a maximum period of 21 days. At the end of the period you will receive a reminder. The editor may waive the review if there is no response.

Steps for a Good Review:

  1. Read the entire article, including supplementary material if available, paying special attention to figures, tables, data, and methods.
  2. The report should critically analyze the article as a whole, as well as specific sections and key concepts presented.
  3. Ensure your comments are detailed enough for the authors to understand and address the points you raise.
  4. Reviewers should not recommend citing their own work, the work of close colleagues, other authors, or the journal unless it is clearly necessary to improve the manuscript's quality.
  5. Reviewers should not recommend excessive citation of their own work (self-citations), another author's work (honorary citations), or articles from the journal where the manuscript was submitted, as a means to increase citations for the reviewer/authors/journal. You can provide references as needed, but they should clearly enhance the quality of the manuscript under review.
  6. Maintain a neutral tone and provide constructive criticism that will help authors improve their work. Derogatory comments will not be tolerated.
  7. Reviewers are fully responsible for the content of their reports. They should not use artificial intelligence tools (such as ChatGPT) to review submissions or create review reports. The use of these technologies for this purpose constitutes a violation of peer review confidentiality.
  8. RPMGF recommends using specific grids for scientific publication, as described in the publication guidelines. Please refer to the respective section on the RPMGF website, where you will find links to different recommendations.

Review reports should include the following:

  1. A brief summary (a short paragraph) outlining the article's objective, main contributions, and strengths.
  2. General comments on the concepts under analysis, including research questions, topic relevance, detected weaknesses, methodological inaccuracies, appropriateness of references, etc.
  3. Comments should focus on the scientific content of the manuscript and be specific enough for the authors to respond adequately, including clear references to the text or tables to which they refer.

General Questions to Guide the Review Report:

  1. Originality: What does this manuscript add to current knowledge?
  2. Misconduct: Plagiarism, fraudulent or unreliable data, duplication, or bias in publication.
  3. Manuscript Structure: Title, Abstract, Introduction, Methods, Results, Discussion, Conclusions, References, Tables/Figures.
  4. Length: Can the manuscript be shortened without removing any relevant aspects? Can any tables/figures be removed or improved?
  5. Presentation: Is the manuscript presented clearly and logically? If not, can it be improved? How?
  6. Publication Recommendation: Do you think the manuscript should be published in RPMGF? Why or why not?
  7. Other comments.

5. Manuscript Evaluation

During the manuscript evaluation, please assess the following aspects:

  1. Novelty: Is the question original and well-defined? Do the results advance current knowledge?
  2. Scope: Does the work fit the scope of RPMGF?
  3. Significance: Are the results interpreted appropriately? Are they significant? Are all conclusions justified and supported by the results? Are hypotheses carefully identified as such?
  4. Quality: Is the article written appropriately? Are data and analyses presented appropriately? Are the highest standards used for presenting results?
  5. Scientific Soundness: Is the study correctly designed and technically sound? Are analyses performed with the highest technical standards? Are the data robust enough to draw conclusions? Are methods, tools, software, and reagents described in sufficient detail to allow another researcher to reproduce the results? Are raw data available and correct (when applicable)?
  6. Interest for Readers: Are the conclusions interesting for the target audience of RPMGF?
  7. Overall Merit: Is there a global benefit in publishing this work? Does the work contribute to advancing current knowledge? Do the authors address an important question? Do the authors present a negative result of a valid scientific hypothesis?
  8. Publication Ethics:

            * Manuscripts must be original and should not reuse text from another source without proper citation.

            * Manuscripts must report only results that have not been submitted or published previously, even in part.

            * The reported studies must have been conducted according to generally accepted ethical standards in research.

If the reviewer becomes aware of any scientific misconduct or fraud, plagiarism, or any other unethical behavior related to the manuscript, they must immediately raise these concerns with the section editor.

6. General Recommendation

The review recommendation is summarized as follows:

  1. Accept Submission: The article can be accepted without further changes.
  2. Revisions Required: Manuscript acceptance will depend on revisions. The author needs to provide a point-by-point response and argumentation regarding the review comments. Authors will be asked to submit the revised manuscript within fifteen days. This version will be evaluated by the editor, who may choose to send it back to the reviewers for further comments.
  3. Resubmit for Review: The article needs to be reviewed in a second round by the reviewer after corrections before it can be published.
  4. Submit to Another Journal: The reviewer considers that the manuscript is not within the scope of RPMGF.
  5. Reject Submission: The article has serious flaws, does not make an original contribution, or requires a deep revision that substantially changes its structure or presentation.
  6. See Comments: When the reviewer does not make a final decision but sends comments that can help the editor appreciate the article.

The reviewer's recommendation is visible only to the journal editors, not the authors. Decisions regarding revisions, acceptance, or rejections must always be well justified. The final decision lies with the editor, which will have 7 days to comment after receiving at least two review reports, and ultimately with the RPMGF editor-in-chief, who has the right to veto all editorial decisions of RPMGF.

All articles will undergo the necessary rounds of review for the final publication decision.