Peer Review

Peer Review

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.

HI uses a double-blind peer review system, where reviewers do not know the authors’ identities.  Review reports with suggestions are also confidential, ensuring scientific excellence as the determining factor for manuscript publication. 

To ensure the application of the double-blind peer review system, authors must prepare their manuscripts to conceal their identities, and therefore, author names and affiliations should be removed from the main manuscript file. This information should only be included in the Title Page.

In the evaluation process, reviewers complete a standard form with predefined options, providing an open field to justify their final decision to accept, reject, or recommend corrections or adjustments.

After receiving the reviews, the editor and editorial team will analyze the reviewers' recommendations and return a decision to the authors. If modifications are requested, authors have up to three weeks to resubmit the manuscript, which may be re-evaluated by the same reviewers in a new round of evaluation. The final decision for publication or rejection of the manuscript will be made by the editorial team and editor-in-chief.

HI accepts manuscripts previously posted on preprint servers. However, authors must provide the virtual location (link and DOI) in the Title Page for the editors’ knowledge. These manuscripts will only undergo blind review, considering that reviewers may be aware of the authors' identities. If the manuscript is accepted for publication, the authors must immediately withdraw the document from the preprint repository or provide the link to the published version in the HI Journal on the repository.

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.