Reviewer Guidelines

The Role of the Reviewer

A reviewer (also called a referee or evaluator) is a specialist invited to assess, in a careful and impartial manner, a manuscript submitted for publication, ensuring the quality, relevance, and academic integrity of the text, as an advisory instance, and is appointed by the editors based on their expertise and academic experience. As a researcher and/or professional with knowledge of the manuscript’s subject area, the reviewer acts on a voluntary and occasional basis, contributing to open access to scientific knowledge. The final result of this work is presented in a technical report, according to the model provided by the journal.

Selection of Reviewers

Evaluators or reviewers are selected according to their research areas and specific subject expertise, in accordance with the topic of the submitted article or contribution. Considering that Vox Scripturae receives articles in four (4) languages, a second criterion for selecting reviewers is the reviewer’s command of the original language in which the article was written.

Review Credits

An author who has already benefited from peer review contributions to improve an article submitted to a journal should consider becoming a reviewer and participating in the editorial activity of journals. Therefore, as stated in the submission policy, doctors who publish in Vox Scripturae will, after their first publication, be automatically integrated into the journal’s reviewer board and may be called upon as needed.

Vox Scripturae offers credits to reviewers through the issuance of an ad hoc review certificate, publication of reviewers’ names on the journal’s website, and a thank-you email.

Ethics in Review

In carrying out their role, reviewers seek to contribute to the qualification of works for publication and must uphold an ethical posture that protects the author, who has entrusted the manuscript to the journal, while also promoting scientific knowledge. In the double-blind review model, the reviewer must also preserve the anonymity of both their own role and that of the authors.

Reviewers are requested to follow the recommendations of COPE – Committee on Publication Ethics (cf. COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers. Version 2 September 2017 DOI https://doi.org/10.24318/cope.2019.1.9).

Ethical Principles for Reviewers

  • Timeliness: be courteous in complying with deadlines and inform the editor of any inability to review or need for an extension
  • Confidentiality: do not disclose the manuscript beyond those involved in the editorial process
  • Conflicts: inform the editor of conflicts and decline to review articles in which there is a conflict of interest
  • Competence in reviewing: reflect on your command of the field and be honest, clear, and precise in your comments. Questions raised about the text must be based on theoretical grounds and not on the reviewers’ personal opinions
  • Ethical commitment: inform the editor of any suspicion of irregularities in the research
  • Anti-plagiarism: inform the editor of any suspicion of plagiarism (similarities)
  • Promotion of science: ensure that the review seeks the improvement of the article and the advancement of sound scientific production
  • Cordiality: show respect and use respectful language toward the authors

Evaluation Criteria

The purpose of the review should be to improve the work for publication. In this sense, it is desirable that the reviewer’s perspective be oriented toward contributing to the quality of the manuscript rather than assigning a label or acting as an inspector.

Reviews will be prepared following a specific form for each type of submitted work. At the end of the review, the reviewer will present a recommendation for the manuscript. 

Possible final recommendations:

  1. Accept (full acceptance): the manuscript may be published in its current state
  2. Minor Revision (conditional acceptance): the manuscript will need to undergo minor revisions, which will be evaluated by the editor
  3. Major Revision (conditional acceptance): the manuscript will need to undergo substantial revisions, which will be evaluated by one of the reviewers
  4. Revise and Resubmit (conditional rejection): the manuscript will need to be substantially reworked and may be resubmitted to the journal
  5. Reject (total rejection): the manuscript will not be published by the journal

All manuscripts sent to the journal and accepted in the pre-evaluation stage are forwarded to at least two reviewers in the peer review stage. Despite the reviewers’ recommendations, the decision of the editor and the editorial board is final and may or may not follow those recommendations.