Double blind peer review

PEER REVIEW PROCESS

Before submitting a manuscript, authors are required to review the information available under the following tabs:

1. About the Journal
2. Editorial Policies
3. Retraction Policy
4. Open Science Policies

OPEN SCIENCE MANUSCRIPT SUBMISSION AND REVIEW METHOD

Starting in 2024, REAMEC Journal is implementing the "Open Science Manuscript Submission and Review Method," aligned with the principles and modus operandi of Open Science. This method aims to detail the procedures for authors intending to submit their manuscripts to this journal, as well as the systematic review processes that promote and value the practice of open peer review. The method establishes three distinct options for manuscript submission and review in REAMEC Journal, considered inherent practices of Open Science, especially regarding the openness of peer review. All these options are managed by the Open Journal Systems (OJS), the Journal's digital platform. The options are:

a) First option: manuscript submission with the possibility of peer review in both double-blind and open modalities (without identification and without reviewers' reports);

b) Second option: manuscript submission for open peer review, including the identification of reviewers;

c) Third option: manuscript submission for open peer review, including detailed reviews from reviewers.

In the following subtopics, we will explore each of these options in detail, providing a deeper insight into the processes and practices involved in each submission and review option at REAMEC Journal.

First Option: Manuscript Submission with the Option for Both Double-Blind and Open Peer Review

In this option, the corresponding author submits the manuscript via the Journal's website (OJS), attaching the following documents:

1. Doc. 1 - Initial version of the manuscript using the Template (mandatory for all three submission options);
2. Doc. 2 - Declaration of no conflict of interest (mandatory for all three submission options);
3. Doc. 3 - Declaration of compliance with ethical standards in research involving human subjects (mandatory for any research involving humans and for all three submission options);
4. Doc. 4 - Open Science compliance form (mandatory for all three submission options);

Authors must sign all documents according to the templates provided on the Journal's website. In Doc. 4, they must indicate the manuscript's compliance with Open Science practices, specifying: (a) whether the manuscript is a Preprint and, if so, its location in a reliable Preprint repository; (b) whether data, program codes, and other essential materials for the manuscript are properly cited and referenced; and (c) acceptance of open options in the peer review process. If the submitted manuscript is a Preprint, the review automatically becomes open. In this scenario, reviewers will know the authors' identities and will be invited to conduct an open review, allowing authors to recognize their reviewers. Alternatively, if authors indicate that the manuscript is not a Preprint but still opt for openness in the peer review process, the assigned editor will proceed to invite two reviewers for an open review, disclosing reviewers' names to the authors. If both reviewers agree to this approach, an open review process is established, enabling message exchanges and dialogue between authors and reviewers through the Journal's system/website, discussing aspects of the manuscript under review.

If the authors specify in Doc. 4 that they do not consent to an open peer review process, or if a reviewer declines to disclose their identity when invited by the editor, this decision will be respected by both authors and reviewers. Consequently, the review will proceed under a double-blind model, where neither the authors nor the reviewers are aware of each other's identities.

After consultations with both authors and reviewers, if all parties agree or disagree with the openness of the review process, following Open Science principles and specifically "open peer manuscript review," the process moves to the next phase. This phase involves a thorough and systematic review of the manuscript based on the "REAMEC Journal Manuscript Evaluation Form" (Doc. 5 or Doc. 6), which outlines the conditions, aspects, and criteria for evaluation. Once the form is completed through the REAMEC Journal's system, reviewers have the option to optionally attach a version of the manuscript with comments or notes in .doc or .docx format via the "Reviewer Files" feature by selecting "Upload File." The annotated manuscript version is then made available to the authors as a supplement to the observations and comments recorded in the form items within the system.

After the review, the reviewer records their "Recommendation" for the manuscript, which could be: "Accept," "Mandatory Corrections," "Resubmit for Review," "Submit to Another Journal," "Reject," or "See Comments." These recommendations are advisory and crucial for the "Editor's Decision," which could be one of three outcomes: "Request Modifications," "Accept Submission," or "Reject Submission." To make one of these decisions, it is essential for the editor to receive two or three reviews with the reviewers' recommendations. While the editor generally follows the reviewers' suggestions, there may be instances where additional reviews from other reviewers are sought to provide a more solid basis for the final decision.

If two reviewers recommend "Accept" for the manuscript, it will be approved for publication by the responsible editor. In this specific situation, it is not necessary for the authors to submit "Doc. 7 - Declaration of Compliance with Reviewers' Recommendations." It is important to note that this document is mandatory for all three submission options but only needs to be submitted after receiving the reviewers' reports. In the case of unanimous acceptance recommendations, the procedure is simplified, omitting the need for this specific document.

Should one reviewer recommend "Accept" and another "Mandatory Corrections," or if both indicate "Mandatory Corrections," the responsible editor opts to "Request Modifications" and forwards the detailed reviews to the authors. This decision requires the authors to submit "Doc. 7" to the editor, detailing the reviewers' suggestions and indicating which were accepted or not, following the template available on the Journal's website. After receiving "Doc. 7" and "Doc. 8 - Final (revised) version of the manuscript," adjusted according to the reviews and the Journal's Template, the editor sends these documents back to the reviewers for another round of review. This process continues until both reviewers agree to "Accept" the final (revised) version of the manuscript. Only after this agreement does the responsible editor make the decision to "Accept Submission."

If one reviewer recommends "Accept" and the other suggests "Resubmit for Review," "Submit to Another Journal," "Reject," or simply to "See Comments," the responsible editor will opt to seek the review of a third, and possibly even a fourth, reviewer. This additional step aims to obtain another opinion on the manuscript in question, thus contributing to a more informed and balanced final decision by the editor after the peer review process.

If both reviewers suggest "Resubmit for Review," the responsible editor decides to "Request Modifications" and forwards the reviews to the authors. This decision requires the authors to submit "Doc. 7" to the editor, detailing the recommendations made by the reviewers and clarifying which were or were not incorporated by the authors. Additionally, the authors must send "Doc. 8," which is the updated/revised version of the manuscript. Once these documents are received, the editor sends them back to the same reviewers, initiating another round of review. This process is repeated until both reviewers agree to "Accept" the final (revised) version of the manuscript. After obtaining this agreement, the responsible editor proceeds with the decision to "Accept Submission."

If both reviewers recommend "Submit to Another Journal," "Reject," or simply to "See Comments," the responsible editor proceeds to send these reviews to the authors and makes the decision to "Reject Submission." With this decision, the manuscript is archived, thus concluding its review process within the Journal. This step marks the end of the review cycle for this specific manuscript in the Journal, indicating that it did not meet the necessary criteria for publication in this periodical.

When the manuscript is approved by the responsible editor, with the decision to "Accept Submission," regardless of whether it occurred in the first, second, or third round of review, the process moves to the "Text Editing" phase. In this stage, authors are guided on the supplementary documents that need to be submitted to commence "Text Editing." This phase involves the layout of the final version of the manuscript, already revised and approved, following the norms established by the Journal. The supplementary documents are:

1. Doc. 9 - Declaration of manuscript review by a specialist (mandatory for all three submission options and must be sent after receiving the reviews);
2. Doc. 10 - Declaration of responsibility and copyright transfer (mandatory for all three submission options and must be sent after receiving the reviews);
3. Doc. 11 - Translation Declaration (optional and recommended for all three submission options, but necessary only when authors opt to publish a translation of the manuscript in another language).

After receiving the supplementary documents, the responsible editor verifies that all required documentation by the Journal has been duly submitted. Once it is confirmed that all documents have been submitted, the manuscript advances to the final stage of the editorial process, called "Typesetting." In this phase, the editor assigns a DOI (Digital Object Identifier) to the manuscript, performs a final check of the layout done in the "Text Editing" stage, updates the manuscript's metadata in the system, and sends the final version, already typeset and laid out in PDF format, to the authors for "Proofreading."

"Proofreading" is essentially a final review by the authors of the manuscript's final version before its publication. If any changes are identified as necessary, the authors must communicate the required corrections to the responsible editor, specifying the page and paragraph in the PDF document where the changes should be applied. It is important to note that at this stage, authors do not have access to an editable version of the manuscript.

All the mentioned steps, including submission, review, editing, typesetting, and publication of the manuscript, are conducted through the Journal's OJS system/website. These processes are meticulously archived and documented, serving as an official record of the complete editorial flow of the submitted manuscript. This detailed record is essential for maintaining transparency and integrity in the editorial process, ensuring that all phases are conducted according to the standards and norms established by the Journal.

It is important to emphasize that in this "first option" of submission, even when the review is conducted under the double-blind model, if the manuscript is approved for publication, an additional step occurs after the authors submit the revised and approved final version, along with the necessary documentation required by REAMEC Journal. In this step, the responsible editor extends an invitation to the reviewers to authorize the disclosure of their names in "Appendix 1 – Manuscript Information" of the manuscript to be published, as established in the Journal's Template. This appendix will also include links to the reviewers' profiles in the ORCID and Lattes systems, should authorization be granted.

If the reviewer consents to the disclosure of their name, the responsible editor will include this information under the "Reviewers" section in "Appendix 1" of the manuscript, publishing the full name of the reviewer along with the links to their ORCID and Lattes profiles. Conversely, if the reviewer does not grant permission or fails to respond to the system's invitation, the editor will note in the same appendix that "Reviewer x: did not authorize the disclosure of their name" or, as applicable, that "two/three reviewers evaluated this manuscript and did not authorize the disclosure of their names." This practice is adopted to respect the reviewers' decisions regarding the confidentiality of their identities, thereby maintaining the transparency and integrity of the review process.

Another important aspect of the first submission option is that, regardless of the review model adopted (double-blind or open), the responsible editor offers reviewers the opportunity to publish their reviews on the journal article page. This publication can be made anonymously or with identification, depending on the reviewer's preference. Moreover, each published review is assigned a specific DOI (Digital Object Identifier). This DOI acts as a unique identifier for the document, enabling the review to be cited in other works or references, should the reviewers accept the invitation for such publication. This practice aims to enhance the transparency and traceability of the review process, aligning with the principles of Open Science.

The aforementioned aspects – the possibility of disclosing reviewers' names and the option to publish their reviews with a specific DOI, along with the choices related to the openness of the peer review process – are commitments aligned with the Open Science practices that REAMEC Journal intends to adopt. This journal is committed to implementing such practices throughout the manuscript submission, review, and publication process, starting from the year 2024. These measures aim to promote greater transparency, traceability, and integrity in the editorial process, thus aligning with contemporary trends in scientific publishing and reinforcing REAMEC Journal's commitment to the principles of Open Science.

Second Option: Open Peer Review Manuscript Submission Including Reviewer Nomination

In the second submission option to REAMEC Journal, the responsible author, who must hold a Doctoral degree, submits the manuscript via the Journal's website/system, attaching the same required documents as in the first option (Doc. 1; Doc. 2; Doc. 3; Doc. 4). A distinctive feature of this option is that it allows the responsible author, preferably affiliated with a stricto sensu Postgraduate Program in the field of Education (CAPES area 46) or being a foreign researcher, to nominate three reviewers for their manuscript. This nomination requires prior dialogue or contact with potential reviewers, initiated by the responsible author before the manuscript submission, to invite them to the open review process.

It's important to note that the prerogative of dialogue and nomination of reviewers is exclusive to authors holding a Doctoral degree. Authors or co-authors who are undergraduate, master's, or doctoral students are not authorized to nominate or communicate with potential reviewers. Thus, only the Doctoral researcher is competent to make the submission, take responsibility for nominating reviewers, and submit the required documentation to REAMEC Journal. If the conditions stipulated for this submission option are not met, the responsible editor will reject and archive the submission at the initial stage of the editorial process.

After the responsible author, who must be a Doctoral researcher, establishes prior contact and obtains the acceptance of the nominated reviewers to evaluate the manuscript transparently and openly, they proceed with the submission through the Journal's system. At this stage, the responsible author also provides the reviewers' information for registration in the REAMEC Journal system.

Reviewers can be researchers already registered in the Journal's system, as listed on the "Reviewers" tab of the Journal's website, or new researchers not yet registered as reviewers in this periodical. For new reviewers, it is essential that they register in the Journal's system as Reviewers, committing to contribute to the evaluation/review of future submissions, either through the double-blind or open model.

To complete the registration, nominated reviewers must fill out the REAMEC Journal's reviewer form, available at: https://forms.gle/wBoxJdi5znBK6pWh6. After submitting this form, the responsible editor will register these researchers in the Journal's system. Only after this registration is completed will the open review process formally begin.

In this mode, when reviewers are nominated by the responsible author of the submission, they must agree to participate in an open review process. This implies acknowledging the authors of the manuscript and authorizing the responsible editor to reveal their identities to the authors. With this acceptance, the open peer review process begins.

From the manuscript submission and the acceptance of the reviewers to conduct an open review, all communication unfolds through the Journal's website/system. This allows authors and reviewers to interact directly through the system, facilitating dialogue and the exchange of pertinent information about the submitted manuscript.

The necessary documents and guidelines for proceeding in the system, already outlined in the "first option" of submission, are equally applicable and required in this "second option." Therefore, all previously mentioned procedures and documentation must be followed and submitted, considering that this second option is characterized by open review, differing from the first option mainly in the type of interaction between authors and reviewers.

To be a reviewer in the context of the "second option" of submission to REAMEC Journal, the nominated researcher must meet specific criteria essential for ensuring the quality and suitability of the evaluation/review process. The necessary conditions for a researcher to be eligible as a reviewer in this mode include:

i) Appropriate Academic Qualification: The reviewer must have relevant academic qualifications ensuring their expertise in the manuscript's field of study and hold a Doctoral degree from Postgraduate Programs in the field of Education or Teaching.

ii) Institutional Affiliation: Be affiliated as a permanent faculty member in a stricto sensu Postgraduate Program in the field of Education, preferably specialized in Science and Mathematics Education.

iii) Institutional Independence: Not be affiliated with the same professional institution, origin, or the Postgraduate Program of the manuscript's authors/co-authors.

iv) Participation in the Journal's Reviewer Team: Be part, or agree to be part, of the Journal's reviewer team, registered in the system.

v) Disclosure of Identity: Agree to publish their names and ORCID and Lattes links in "Appendix 1 – Manuscript Information," as per the Journal's Template.

vi) Publication of the Review: Accept that their review be published with a specific DOI and disclosed on the article's page in the Journal. Although this is a desirable condition, it is not mandatory.

vii) Academic Experience in Evaluation and Research: The reviewer is expected to have solid research and evaluation experience in the manuscript's thematic area, crucial for providing an in-depth and constructive assessment.

viii) Specific Knowledge of the Topic: The reviewer must have specific and up-to-date knowledge of the manuscript's subject matter, allowing them to assess the relevance, originality, and scientific rigor of the work.

ix) Availability and Commitment: The reviewer must be available to conduct the review within the Journal's stipulated timeframe and commit to following the ethical guidelines and standards of peer review.

x) Impartiality and Fairness: It is essential for the reviewer to maintain an impartial and unbiased stance, avoiding conflicts of interest that could compromise the evaluation's integrity.

xi) Constructive Communication Skills: The reviewer must be capable of clearly, objectively, and constructively communicating their observations and suggestions, effectively contributing to the manuscript's improvement.

xii) Compliance with Journal Policies: The reviewer must be willing to follow the Journal's specific policies and guidelines, including the principles of Open Science, where applicable.

These conditions aim to ensure that the manuscript evaluation is conducted efficiently, ethically, and professionally, contributing to maintaining the high standards of quality and scientific integrity that REAMEC Journal strives to uphold.

In this "second option" of manuscript submission and review adopted by REAMEC Journal, the initial phase of dialogue and invitation to review the manuscript falls on the submitting researcher, who must hold a Doctoral degree. This initial dialogue with potential reviewers can be conducted via email or another communication means at the responsible author's discretion. The goal is to document the communication and secure a prior acceptance from the invited reviewers to participate in the manuscript's review process.

It is crucial that during this dialogue, the responsible researcher clarifies the "Open Science Manuscript Submission and Review Method" implemented by REAMEC Journal. Reviewers should be thoroughly informed about this method, the conditions and requirements involved, so they can knowingly accept the nomination and be appropriately registered in the Journal's system.

This procedure ensures that reviewers are fully aware of and aligned with the Open Science practices and guidelines adopted by the Journal, promoting a transparent, ethical, and high-quality review process.

After the manuscript and required documents (Doc. 1; Doc. 2; Doc. 3; Doc. 4) submission by REAMEC Journal, along with the reviewer nomination by the responsible researcher, the Journal's responsible editor proceeds to register these reviewers in the Journal's system. Once registered, the entire communication process – including the invitation to review, the designation of reviewers, confirmation of acceptance, the submission and receipt of reviews, and other relevant information – is managed and documented through the REAMEC Journal's OJS website.

This procedure aligns with the principles and modus operandi of Open Science adopted by the Journal. It ensures transparent, efficient, and traceable communication between the editor, reviewers, and authors, contributing to the integrity and quality of the open peer review process. Thus, REAMEC Journal reinforces its commitment to open and ethical editorial practices, following contemporary trends in scientific publishing.

In this "second option" for submission to REAMEC Journal, a mandatory condition relates to the identification and disclosure of reviewers' names. These researchers must authorize the publication of their names in "Appendix 1 – Manuscript Information," as per the Journal's Template, including links to their ORCID and Lattes profiles. This requirement aims to promote transparency in the open peer review process.

However, the publication of reviewers' opinions on the Journal's article page is not a mandatory condition but rather desired. The decision to authorize the publication of reviews, each with a specific DOI for easy citation and reference, is at the reviewers' discretion. This procedure, if adopted, further contributes to the transparency and traceability of the review process, aligning with the principles of Open Science. Therefore, while disclosing reviewers' names is mandatory, publishing reviews is optional but encouraged in this submission option.

Third Option: Open Peer Review Manuscript Submission Including Detailed Reviewer Feedback

In REAMEC Journal's "third option" for submission, known for its bold and innovative approach, the emphasis is on enhancing the quality and transparency of the manuscript evaluation process from an Open Science perspective. In this model, the manuscript submission is carried out by the responsible author, who must be a Doctoral-level researcher, following the open peer review framework.

For this submission, the responsible author must attach all documents required by REAMEC Journal, which are essential for the manuscript's publication. These documents include:

1) Doc. 1 - Initial manuscript version using the Template (mandatory for all three submission options);
2) Doc. 2 - Declaration of no conflict of interest (mandatory for all three submission options);
3) Doc. 3 - Declaration of compliance with ethical standards in human research (mandatory for all research involving humans and for all three submission options);
4) Doc. 4 - Open Science compliance form (mandatory for all three submission options);
5) Doc. 5 - First favorable review with publication authorization, according to REAMEC Journal's manuscript evaluation form (mandatory only for the third submission option);
6) Doc. 6 - Second favorable review with publication authorization, according to REAMEC Journal's manuscript evaluation form (mandatory only for the third submission option);
7) Doc. 7 - Declaration of adherence to reviewer recommendations (mandatory for all three submission options, to be sent after receiving the reviews);
8) Doc. 8 - Final (revised) manuscript version in accordance with the received reviews and the Journal's Template (mandatory for all three submission options, to be sent after receiving the reviews);
9) Doc. 9 - Manuscript review declaration by a specialist (mandatory for all three submission options, to be sent after receiving the reviews);
10) Doc. 10 - Declaration of responsibility and copyright transfer (mandatory for all three submission options, to be sent after receiving the reviews);
11) Doc. 11 - Translation Declaration (optional and recommended for all three submission options, but necessary only when authors choose to publish a manuscript translation in another language).

In this "third option" for submission to REAMEC Journal, it is imperative to demonstrate and prove that the peer review was conducted openly, qualitatively, and transparently. To achieve this, the involved reviewers must fulfill the requirements and conditions established in the previous option, ensuring the review process's quality and integrity.

Authors are responsible for establishing effective dialogue with reviewers, using the communication means they deem most appropriate, always respecting mutual consensus among the involved parties. The critical and mandatory aspect is that the responsible author clearly documents and demonstrates that a systematic, qualitative, and transparent evaluation was performed on an initial manuscript version (Doc. 1) by two or three reviewers. Moreover, it should be evident that the reviewers' recommendations were duly incorporated into the manuscript's final version (Doc. 8).

These evidences are presented in the reviewers' feedback (Doc. 5 and Doc. 6), which should be completed according to REAMEC Journal's manuscript evaluation form, available on the Journal's website. Doc. 7 serves as a record of the changes made by the authors in response to the reviewers' suggestions.

Thus, this submission option not only emphasizes the transparency and quality of the peer review but also reinforces the commitment to the editorial process's integrity, in line with Open Science principles.

This submission and review approach adopted by REAMEC Journal, aligned with an innovative methodology based on Open Science tenets, highlights agility, transparency, and quality in the scientific publication process. This option ensures and communicates to readers that the manuscript underwent an open peer review process. Furthermore, it allows the evaluations and reviews conducted by two or three reviewers to be accessible, verifiable, and potentially citable, through the publication of their detailed feedback.

In this option, the responsibility for the evaluation and review process falls on the authors and the reviewers they invited. Thus, the Journal acts more as a platform for publishing individual articles, rather than compiling bundles of articles into periodic issues. This represents a significant shift from how traditional journals typically operate, moving towards a more open and collaborative model of disseminating scientific knowledge.

Despite this innovative approach, the final decision on the submission still rests with the responsible editor. Even if the manuscript is submitted with all required documentation and has undergone a rigorous peer review process, the editor has the final say on "Accept Submission" or "Reject Submission." This final step ensures that, regardless of the review process, the manuscript meets the Journal's established quality standards and criteria.

In the context of REAMEC Journal's "third option" for manuscript submission, communication between authors and reviewers is a responsibility that falls on the submitting researcher, who must hold a Doctoral degree and be affiliated as a permanent faculty member in a stricto sensu Postgraduate Program in the field of Education (CAPES area 46). For foreign researchers, the requirement is limited to holding a Doctoral degree.

Dialogue with reviewers can be conducted via email, which is advisable for record-keeping and documentation purposes, or through any other communication form deemed appropriate by the parties. The central aim of this dialogue is to ensure that the initial manuscript version is submitted for two or three detailed reviews by reviewers invited by the responsible researcher.

It is crucial that during this dialogue, the responsible researcher clarifies the "Open Science Manuscript Submission and Review Method" implemented by REAMEC Journal to the reviewers. Reviewers should be fully informed about this method, understanding and accepting the stipulated conditions and guidelines for manuscript submission under this "third option."

This transparent and clarifying communication process is vital to ensuring that all parties involved are aware of the evaluation process's expectations and requirements, thus promoting an open, qualitative review aligned with the Open Science principles that REAMEC Journal aims to follow.

In REAMEC Journal's "third option" for manuscript submission, the responsible author, who must be a Doctoral-level researcher, plays a central role in the peer review process. After opting for this submission route, the responsible researcher sends the initial manuscript version (Doc. 1) to the reviewers they have invited, accompanied by REAMEC Journal's manuscript evaluation form (Doc. 5 and/or Doc. 6).

The responsible researcher is tasked with receiving the reviewers' feedback, typically via email, to ensure proper documentation of these communications. It is important to note that the reviews should be electronically signed, using the gov.br electronic signature system or another similar system that guarantees the veracity and authenticity of the signatures. Scanned signatures are not accepted.

After receiving the reviews, the responsible researcher must share them with the manuscript's co-authors (Doc. 5 and Doc. 6). All authors, collectively, are responsible for adhering to the recommendations and requirements made by the reviewers. This adherence must be documented and recorded in Doc. 7, which, in turn, must be submitted to the Journal.

This process ensures that the manuscript review is conducted openly and transparently, in line with the Journal's Open Science guidelines. Moreover, the active involvement of the responsible researcher and the other authors in the review process promotes greater accountability and engagement with the submitted work's quality and improvement.

To expedite the approval of the final manuscript version submitted through the "third option," the responsible researcher has the option to directly send Doc. 8 (the final manuscript version) and the aforementioned Doc. 7 (document detailing adherence to the reviewers' recommendations) to the reviewers. After the responsible researcher submits all "Required Documents by REAMEC Journal," the responsible editor will also confirm with the reviewers, ensuring that the review process was conducted according to the Journal's guidelines.

After the manuscript submission in the system by the responsible researcher, accompanied by all required documentation, the responsible editor begins verifying the following essential items for the manuscript's acceptance:

1) Compliance with the Journal's Template: The manuscript must be formatted according to the Template provided by the Journal.

2) Adherence to Focus and Scope: The manuscript must be relevant to the Journal's focus and scope and suitable for the section to which it was submitted.

3) Qualified Authorship: At least one of the manuscript's authors must hold a Doctoral degree.

4) Ethical Review Certificate (CAAE): For research involving humans, it is necessary to present the Ethical Review Certificate number (CAAE), issued by the National Health Council's Ethics Committee (CONEP).

5) Manuscript Format: The manuscript must be submitted in .doc or .docx format (Word).

6) Document Submission: The responsible author must submit all 10 documents required for this submission option.

7) Similarity and Plagiarism Analysis: The final manuscript version is subjected to an analysis using specific software to detect similarity and plagiarism.

This verification by the editor ensures that the manuscript meets all the Journal's established criteria and standards, ensuring the work's quality and suitability before proceeding to the next steps in the editorial process.

This verification and the procedures described in the checklist apply to all three submission options in REAMEC Journal. If, during this verification, the responsible editor identifies any missing documents or non-compliance with any of the established requirements, they will contact the responsible submitting researcher. The purpose of this contact is to request the submission of missing documents or compliance with the necessary conditions for the manuscript's acceptance, according to the guidelines already presented.

If the established conditions are not met, or if any required document is not submitted within the stipulated deadline, the responsible editor has the prerogative to make the decision to "Reject Submission." This step is crucial to maintaining the integrity of the publication process and ensuring that all manuscripts submitted to the Journal meet the established quality and compliance standards.

After checking the mentioned items, the responsible editor makes the decision to "Accept Submission" or "Reject Submission." In both cases, the same procedures informed in the "first option" are followed when reaching this "Decision Making" stage by the Journal's editor.

When the submission is accepted, the responsible editor initiates a dialogue with the reviewers and authors. For reviewers registered in the system, the editor sends, through it, a message sharing "Doc. 8 - Final (revised) manuscript version, in accordance with the two or three received reviews and formatted according to the Journal's Template." This document is mandatory for all three submission options and must be sent after receiving the reviews. Along with this, Doc. 7 is sent for verification purposes and to confirm the reviewers' authorization for the manuscript's publication. Additionally, Doc. 5 and Doc. 6, which are the reviews, are also sent to the reviewers, for verification and authorization of their publication on the article's page, assigning a DOI to them.

These innovations aim to promote agility in the manuscript submission and publication process while maintaining the open peer review's integrity and transparency. REAMEC Journal is committed to the Open Science modus operandi and encourages authors and reviewers to actively participate in these innovative processes.

Note:
Text updated on: 01/08/2024.
Source: https://doi.org/10.26571/reamec.v11i1.16911