Original manuscripts received will be analyzed by the editor-in-chief and then by members of the Executive Editorial Committee, who will conduct a preliminary review called a desk review. The purpose of this evaluation is to:
- Analyze if the manuscript aligns with the thematic scope of the journal;
- Check if the manuscript adheres to the Author Guidelines;
- Verify if the supplementary documentation (title page, author declaration, REC approval, etc.) is correctly completed;
- Perform a similarity check using anti-plagiarism tools.
After approval in this first stage, the manuscript will be sent to at least two specialists for peer review according to the following criteria:
- Originality and scientific relevance: aims to assess the originality and scientific contribution of the manuscript.
- Clarity and organization: aims to check the structure and flow of the text.
- Content: aims to analyze the elements present in the sections: title, abstract, descriptors, introduction, materials and methods, results, discussion, final considerations/conclusion, and references.
- Methodological quality: check the robustness of the methods used, as well as their scientific documentation.
- Ethical compliance: aims to check that ethical issues have been adequately addressed.
- Writing: this aims to inform about the need for corrections related to grammar, spelling, and style.
- Potential impact: considers the relevance and future contribution of the manuscript to the scientific field.
If necessary, a third reviewer may be invited if previous evaluations result in doubts regarding acceptance.
Manuscripts submitted to the journal Hansenologia Internationalis are evaluated through two peer review models:
- Double-blind peer review – In this model, reviewers do not know the authors’ identities or affiliations, and authors do not know the identities of the reviewers. The evaluation forms and reviewers’ recommendations remain confidential, ensuring that scientific merit is the sole determinant of publication. To guarantee the integrity of this process, authors’ names and affiliations must be omitted from the manuscript and provided only on the Title Page.
- Open Peer Review – To strengthen the transparency and integrity of the editorial process, beginning in May 2026, the journal will offer the option of open peer review, subject to agreement between authors and reviewers. This model allows the disclosure of identities and direct interaction between authors and reviewers through the journal’s submission system throughout the review process.
For manuscripts previously deposited as preprints, and considering that the authors’ identities are already publicly available, the review process will be conducted through single-anonymized or open peer review.
At the time of submission, authors must indicate the preferred review model for their manuscript by completing the Open Science Compliance Form.
During the review process, reviewers complete a standardized evaluation form containing predefined assessment criteria and an open field for comments. Based on their evaluation, reviewers may recommend acceptance, rejection, or revisions and corrections to the manuscript.
If revisions are requested, authors must submit a revised version of the manuscript through the journal’s system. When necessary, the revised version may be re-evaluated by the same reviewers. The final decision regarding acceptance or rejection of the manuscript rests with the editor-in-chief, in collaboration with the assistant or associate editor(s).
At the conclusion of the editorial process, the reviews of accepted articles may be published, subject to the consent of both the authors and reviewers. If authorized, the reviewer’s identity may also be disclosed.
The names of the editor-in-chief and the assistant or associate editor(s) responsible for coordinating the peer review process will be published in all articles.
To learn more about the Open Science editorial policy of Hansenologia Internationalis, click here!
The editorial committee and editors reserve the right to:
- Reject texts that do not comply with the journal’s guidelines or have pending documentation;
- Request changes to submitted texts when necessary to alter wording, analysis, or content;
- Make formal, spelling, and grammatical changes as indicated by specialized reviewers.
The period from submission to approval or rejection is approximately 4 to 6 months. On average, the following timelines are considered:
- Desk review and reviewer selection — 15 days;
- Reviewer acceptance and report submission — 20 days;
- Reviewers' recommendations analysis and decision returned to authors — 7 days;
- Manuscript correction and resubmission — 21 days;
- Re-evaluation (if necessary) — 10 days/round.
Hansenologia Internationalis values the quality of the review process as well as the speed in evaluation and completion of the editorial process. However, the evaluation flow may vary under certain circumstances, such as:
- When an invitation is declined or the deadline for submitting the review is not met without justification. In this case, the editor will select a new reviewer and start a new evaluation cycle (20 days).
- When there is a discrepancy in the decision between the two reviewers. In this case, the editor will invite a third reviewer and start a new evaluation cycle (20 days).
- When a reviewer or author requests an extension, justifying their need and commitment to submitting the review or correction by the established date without affecting the process.
Authors can track the evaluation process by logging into the system and accessing the ‘View Pending Submissions’ icon under the Submission tab. When needed, they can request information from Hansenologia Internationalis about the process.
Situations not covered in this policy will be analyzed by the editorial team.