Editorial Process and Peer Review

01 · PROPOSAL SUBMISSION

Receipt and documentation checks

The procedure begins when a proposal and its supporting documents are submitted through the publishing platform. The corresponding author or volume editor acts as the publisher's contact and must have the agreement of the other contributors.

Files and information needed to assess the project are checked for completeness. A preliminary proposal may receive an expression of interest, but this does not replace assessment of the complete manuscript. Incomplete submissions may be returned for completion before proceeding.

02 · EDITORIAL ASSESSMENT

Relevance and feasibility

The handling editor considers alignment with the publisher's scope, intended readership, contribution, organisation and preliminary academic quality. Length, supplementary materials and production requirements are also considered.

This assessment may result in rejection without external review, a request for documentation or preliminary revisions, or admission to peer review. Where integrity concerns arise, processing may be suspended while clarification is sought under the relevant policies.

03 · INDEPENDENT ASSESSMENT

Peer review and reviewer selection

Research books and monographs admitted to review will be assessed by at least two external, independent specialists. Reviewers are selected by the publisher according to subject or methodological expertise, availability and the absence of competing interests that could compromise impartiality.

Double-anonymous review will be pursued. Where a publicly available thesis, an earlier version or other circumstances prevent identities from being reasonably concealed, the applicable model will be documented and communicated before proceeding. Absolute anonymity will not be claimed where it cannot be maintained.

For edited volumes, the publisher will determine whether assessment covers the complete work, individual chapters or both. Manuals and other scholarly resources will undergo assessment appropriate to their nature, with its scope communicated to those responsible. A work will not be described as peer reviewed if it received only technical editing or copyediting.

04 · REVIEW REPORTS

Scholarly assessment criteria

Reports must substantiate their observations and distinguish substantive concerns from presentation recommendations. Depending on the type of work, assessment will consider:

• The contribution, objectives and suitability for the intended readership.
• Conceptual, methodological and argumentative soundness.
• The quality of sources and support for interpretations and conclusions.
• Structural coherence and integration across chapters.
• Limitations, clarity and relevant ethical considerations.

05 · EDITORIAL OUTCOME

Decisions and communication

Reviewers provide recommendations; the handling editor makes the decision after considering the reports and their own assessment. Decisions do not follow an automatic vote. Substantial disagreement may require an additional specialist assessment.

• Acceptance: the work meets the academic requirements to proceed to production.
• Minor revisions: defined changes are required and must be verified.
• Major revisions: substantive changes are required and further external review may be requested.
• Rejection: the reasons for not proceeding with publication are communicated.

06 · MANUSCRIPT REVISION

Revisions and reassessment

Those responsible submit a revised manuscript and a point-by-point response to the comments. Changes must be identified, and recommendations not followed must be addressed with reasons. For edited volumes, the volume editor must ensure consistency across chapters.

The publisher checks the responses and determines whether another round of review is necessary. An invitation to revise does not guarantee acceptance. Further changes or rejection may follow if substantive concerns remain.

07 · PUBLICATION PREPARATION

Acceptance, production and proofs

Acceptance is formally communicated. Relevant agreements, permissions and conditions are completed before publication. The work proceeds to copyediting, reference and metadata checks, design and typesetting.

Those responsible receive proofs to check the text, tables, figures and identifying information. This stage does not replace scholarly assessment or permit substantive changes without editorial review. Publication may be paused if an issue affecting the integrity of the work emerges.

08 · SCHOLARLY RECORD

Publication and follow-up

Once proofs are approved and requirements completed, the work is added to the catalogue with its bibliographic information and access and reuse conditions. Only identifiers that have actually been assigned will be displayed.

Significant errors or concerns raised after publication will be examined through the relevant integrity, correction or withdrawal procedures. Substantive changes must be documented to preserve the traceability of the scholarly record.

09 · PROCEDURAL SAFEGUARDS

Independence and traceability

Works authored by editorial team members must be handled by an editor without a competing interest. Authors must not participate in selecting reviewers or deciding the outcome of their own work.

Versions, reports and decisions will be documented in the editorial record. Requests for withdrawal, extensions or reconsideration must be submitted through institutional channels. Detailed rules on privacy, integrity, artificial intelligence and appeals are addressed in their respective policies.

10 · PLANNING AND COMMUNICATION

Processing timelines

Timelines will be communicated according to the length, complexity and format of each work. Review invitations will specify deadlines for responding and submitting reports; revision requests will establish authors' deadlines.

Additional assessments, integrity enquiries and extensions may affect the schedule. No acceptance or publication date is guaranteed. Production scheduling will be agreed after acceptance.

Enquiries about a submission
Contact info@revistapraxis.org and include the work's title and submission identifier.