Evaluation policy

Manuscripts submitted to the journal will undergo two stages of evaluation: the preliminary assessment and the double-blind peer review.

Preliminary assessment

The preliminary assessment is carried out as soon as the journal receives the submission, before sending it for double-blind peer review. The manuscript is forwarded to the handling editor together with the similarity check report, which is processed by the journal’s coordination. Upon receiving the assigned manuscript, the handling editor conducts the preliminary assessment to decide whether the manuscript fits the journal’s scope, should be rejected, requires initial revisions, or should proceed to review. At this stage a first evaluation of the manuscript is performed, based on the following aspects:

  • submission of the SUBMISSION DOCUMENT file;
  • anonymity of the authors in the article file;
  • alignment with the journal’s focus, scope and objectives;
  • verification of the total word count;
  • compliance with the author guidelines, and with the editorial policy on ethics and research integrity;
  • manuscript writing in accordance with technical standards and with the standard/formal norms of the chosen language (Portuguese or the selected foreign language — English or Spanish);
  • adherence to the required MODEL/TEMPLATE, with all titles, abstracts and keywords in the three languages (Portuguese, English and Spanish);
  • suitability of the references to the journal’s formatting rules;
  • plagiarism check. The plagiarism screening procedure consists of searching for passages of the manuscript using search engines and software designed for this purpose.

This preliminary assessment must take place within a period of two weeks, during which the editor makes their decision to reject, request revisions, or forward the manuscript for review, and sends invitations to the selected reviewers. In cases of rejection or requests for revisions, the editor must send the corresponding author a justification that supports the decision.

After this stage, the manuscript proceeds in the editorial process to the double-blind peer review. After that stage, if the manuscript is rejected, it will be archived by the journal.

The double-blind peer review process

Biodiversidade Brasileira adopts a double-blind peer review system, in which both reviewers and authors remain anonymous throughout the process, ensuring impartiality and objectivity in the analysis of manuscripts. This process comprises five stages, described below.

Reviewer Assignment

The journal adopts a rigorous reviewer selection process to ensure the quality, impartiality, and reliability of peer review. Reviewers are chosen based on their recognized expertise in the manuscript’s thematic area, taking into account previous publications, academic and professional experience, as well as recommendations from specialists in the field.

The selection prioritizes geographic and institutional diversity among reviewers, seeking to balance perspectives and reduce bias. Reviewers must have experience with scientific publishing and up-to-date knowledge on the topic of the study.

The journal applies protocols that aim to limit the selection of reviewers who may have conflicts of interest with the authors, their institutions, or the manuscript’s content. In addition to operating under a double-blind system, all reviewers receive clear guidance on ethical norms, evaluation criteria, and confidentiality during the review process.

The selection is carried out by the handling editor, often supported by submission-management systems that suggest potential reviewers based on keywords, publication history, and expertise. The final decision on reviewer selection lies with the handling editor.

Invitation and acceptance

Each manuscript is evaluated by at least two reviewers with expertise in the study’s thematic area. Reviewers have up to 14 (fourteen) days to accept the review invitation. If no response is received, the invitation is reiterated for an additional 7 (seven) days. If there is still no response after reiteration, the invitation is canceled and another reviewer is selected.

Manuscript review

After accepting the invitation, each reviewer has 14 (fourteen) days to complete the manuscript review. During this period, reviewers are expected to conduct a detailed analysis, considering all aspects relevant to the scientific quality of the work. The main responsibilities and evaluation criteria are listed below.

Ethics and confidentiality

  • The reviewer must maintain complete confidentiality regarding the manuscript’s content.
  • They may not share, reproduce, or use the information for personal purposes before publication.
  • They must declare any possible conflict of interest with the authors, institutions, or study topics.

Scientific relevance

  • The manuscript must be evaluated for originality, contribution to the field, and relevance for the journal’s readership.

Methodology

  • The reviewer must assess whether the research or experimental procedures are adequate, clear, and reproducible.
  • They must check whether the methods are consistent with the study’s objectives and accepted scientific standards.

Results and analysis

  • The reviewer must assess whether the results are presented clearly and coherently, with appropriate statistical analysis when applicable.
  • They must evaluate whether the data support the study’s conclusions.

Clarity and organization of the text

  • The reviewer verifies whether the manuscript is well structured, with clear introduction, methods, results, discussion, and conclusion.
  • They must suggest improvements to writing, figures, tables, and references to ensure readability and understanding.

Conflicting reviews

  • If the two initial reviews diverge or present significant disagreement, the manuscript may be sent to an additional reviewer.
  • The goal is to ensure a fair and balanced final decision based on multiple specialized perspectives.

The full evaluation process, including reviewer reports and editorial decision, must be completed within 120 days (four months) from initial submission. If the editor foresees difficulties meeting the deadline due to reviewer unavailability, they must notify the editor-in-chief.

Submission of the revised version after revies

After receiving the reviewers’ comments, the author must complete the requested revisions and resubmit the revised manuscript within a maximum of 21 (twenty-one) calendar days, accompanied by a document titled “Response Letter to Reviewers”, clearly and objectively addressing each point raised by the reviewers, indicating the changes made or justifying any lack of changes.

The revised manuscript will be re-evaluated by the editor and, if necessary, resent to the original reviewers or to new reviewers, depending on the nature and extent of the revisions. This review cycle may be repeated until the manuscript meets the journal’s scientific, ethical, and formatting standards.

Failure to meet the deadline or to respond to the reviewers’ requests may result in the manuscript being archived. The final decision on acceptance or rejection rests exclusively with the handling editor, considering the reviewers’ evaluations and compliance with revision requirements.

Proofreading

Authors are responsible for proofreading to verify the spelling of author names, emails, ORCIDs, and affiliations. Corrections must be marked directly in the PDF article file, with clear annotations indicating what must be corrected. No changes will be made to the article’s text after approval, nor will new authors be added or the authorship order modified. Exceptions must be justified and will be evaluated by the journal. In case of doubt, authors should contact the journal at the email address provided (biodiversidade.brasileira@icmbio.gov.br)

After the proofreading request, if authors do not respond within the established deadline, even after a reiterated request, the article will be published tacitly by the editors.

Source: Editorial Policy (https://doi.org/10.37002/biodiversidadebrasileira.v15i3.2881