Peer Review Policy
The Brazilian Journal of Ophthalmology (RBO) adopts the double-blind review model, with anonymity guaranteed throughout the judgment process (blind review).
The objectives of the review:
- Identify errors or problems that make publication unfeasible.
- Help detect plagiarism, self-plagiarism, redundant publication and other forms of misconduct.
- Contribute to the improvement of the manuscript.
- Follow the ethical principles in publication recommended by the COPE.
- Issue considerations in accordance with the Instructions to Authors, which must be done in a timely manner, within the deadline stipulated by the associate editor.
After submitting a manuscript via the ScholarOne system, it goes through the initial screening, only those formatted in accordance with the Instructions to Authors and whose theme fits within the scope of the journal are accepted.
A preliminary analysis is carried out by the journal’s secretariat, verifying the editorial, technical and quality aspects, including the relevance of the topic and ethical requirements of the study. Articles that do not have merit, contain significant errors in methodology, or do not fit the journal’s editorial policy, will be rejected, with no appeal; in turn, manuscripts considered potentially publishable, follow the editorial process, going through the following evaluation stages:
Technical: consists of reviewing aspects of form and scientific writing, with the aim of ensuring that the manuscript meets all the items in the Instructions to Authors and is able to enter the external peer review process. It is carried out by the editor-in-chief who receives the manuscript, assesses whether it is in accordance with the scope of the journal, and may accept or reject it. When accepted, the editor-in-chief assigns it to the associate editor according to his/her sub-specialty. The associate editor assigns to the reviewers.
External by peers: all manuscripts, after approval by the editor-in-chief and attribution of the associate editor, are evaluated by two or three qualified reviewers (peer review), who are specialists in the field, and assess the document, make constructive comments for the improvement of the study. Then, the associate editor makes a recommendation to the editor-in-chief (accept, reject, minor revision, major revision). The evaluators’ comments are returned to the authors, for modifications in the text or justification for their preservation.
The peer review process usually takes 6-8 weeks.
Reviewers make one of the following recommendations:
- Accept
- Minor revision
- Major revision
- Reject
Upon receiving the invitation to review, reviewers must indicate any conflict of interest in relation to the evaluation of the article (and indicate “none”, if not applicable).
The final decision to accept or reject the article after review rests with the Editor-in-Chief.
A Review Acknowledgment is issued by the system to reviewers upon successful review of the manuscript.