Peer Review
Peer Review Policy
DOXA – Brazilian Journal of Psychology and Education
(Aligned with Open Science, COPE, DOAJ, and international editorial best practices)
1. General Principles
DOXA – Brazilian Journal of Psychology and Education adopts peer review as the central mechanism to ensure scientific quality, academic integrity, and qualification of manuscripts submitted to the journal.
The journal’s evaluation policy is grounded in the principles of Open Science, ethics and scientific integrity, editorial transparency, academic responsibility, scientific qualification of manuscripts, impartiality, and respect for epistemological diversity.
DOXA understands peer review as a scientific, formative, and collaborative process whose primary objective is to contribute to the improvement of scientific production.
2. Scientific Qualification as the Core Principle of Evaluation
DOXA establishes as an editorial principle that peer review should prioritize the qualification of scientific articles through technical, ethical, and constructive review reports.
Review reports are intended to strengthen the scientific quality of manuscripts, contribute to theoretical and methodological development, guide corrections and improvements, and promote scientific rigor and academic clarity.
Rejection of manuscripts is considered an exceptional measure, applied mainly in situations involving scientific misconduct, serious ethical violations, absolute incompatibility with the journal’s scope, or insurmountable scientific and methodological infeasibility.
3. Peer Review Models
DOXA may adopt different peer review models according to the nature of the submission, current editorial policy, Open Science guidelines, and editorial decision.
3.1 Single-Blind Peer Review
In the single-blind model, reviewers have access to author identification, while authors do not have access to reviewer identities.
This model may be adopted according to disciplinary specificities, reviewer availability, and editorial decision.
3.2 Double-Blind Peer Review
In the double-blind model, author identities are concealed from reviewers and reviewer identities are concealed from authors.
This model constitutes the primary review system adopted by DOXA, aiming to reduce bias, enhance impartiality, and promote fairness in scientific evaluation.
3.3 Single Open Peer Review
In the single open review model, reviewer identities may be disclosed to authors, authors may remain identified to reviewers, and scientific interaction between authors and reviewers may occur.
This model seeks to promote editorial transparency, scientific accountability, and strengthening of Open Science.
3.4 Double Open Peer Review
In the double open review model, authors and reviewers are mutually aware of each other’s identities, review reports may be published alongside the article, and the process may include open academic dialogue among participants.
Adoption of this model depends on participant consent, current editorial guidelines, and Open Science practices adopted by the journal.
4. Publication of Review Reports
In alignment with Open Science practices and DOAJ recommendations, DOXA may publish anonymized review reports, identified review reports, manuscript editorial history, and interactions between authors and reviewers.
Publication of reports may occur with reviewer authorization, according to the current editorial policy, with or without reviewer identification.
5. Initial Editorial Assessment (Desk Review)
Before peer review, all manuscripts undergo preliminary editorial screening considering alignment with the journal’s scope, originality and scientific relevance, minimum manuscript quality, ethical compliance, similarity and integrity verification, and compliance with editorial standards.
At this stage, manuscripts may proceed to review, be returned for adjustments, or be rejected with justification.
6. Scientific Evaluation Criteria
Reviewers are expected to assess originality and scientific contribution, relevance to Psychology and Education, theoretical foundation, methodological consistency, argumentative clarity, quality of analysis and discussion, relevance and currency of references, and ethical and scientific compliance.
7. Review Reports and Editorial Decisions
Review reports may recommend acceptance without revisions, acceptance with minor revisions, major revisions, a new round of review, or rejection.
Final decisions are the responsibility of the Editor or Editor-in-Chief, based on review reports, the journal’s ethical principles, and current editorial guidelines.
8. Corrections and Revisions
Authors must respond to revisions in a technical and objective manner, provide point-by-point responses to reviewers, and implement requested corrections within the established timeframe.
Revised manuscripts may be returned to reviewers for further evaluation.
9. Ethics, Confidentiality, and Conflicts of Interest
Reviewers commit to acting ethically and impartially, declaring conflicts of interest, maintaining confidentiality regarding evaluated content, and refraining from using information obtained through the review process for personal benefit.
Offensive, discriminatory, or unethical reviews will not be accepted.
10. Editorial Review Workflow
The standard DOXA workflow includes manuscript submission; initial editorial screening (desk review); integrity and similarity verification; assignment to reviewers; peer review; issuance of review reports; editorial decision; author revisions; additional review rounds when necessary; final acceptance; editing and publication.
11. Open Science and Editorial Transparency
DOXA recognizes Open Science as a contemporary practice for strengthening scholarly communication and may adopt publication of review reports, open review practices, editorial transparency, sharing of editorial information, and tracking and traceability of the review workflow.
12. Policy Review
This Peer Review Policy may be reviewed every 6 (six) months in accordance with DOAJ guidelines, COPE recommendations, Open Science developments, and updates in editorial best practices.
Final Statement
DOXA – Brazilian Journal of Psychology and Education reaffirms that peer review must be ethical, transparent, and responsible, that review reports exist to qualify science, and that scientific integrity is a central principle of scholarly communication.
© Copyright – DOXA – Brazilian Journal of Psychology and Education
Editorial management: Editora Ibero-Americana
Peer Review Policy – current version. . (10/05/2026)
