Guidelines for Reviewers

Revista Sem Aspas considers the contribution of reviewers essential to ensuring scientific quality, ethical integrity, and the credibility of its publications. These guidelines provide reviewers with instructions for conduct throughout the peer review process, aligned with the recommendations of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

Reviewers must act with impartiality and objectivity, basing their assessments exclusively on academic merit, without influence from personal, financial, or institutional interests. Any potential or actual conflicts of interest must be immediately disclosed to the editorial team for evaluation.

Confidentiality must be maintained throughout the review process. The manuscript and all related materials must not be shared, discussed, or used for personal purposes before publication.

The review should be technical and constructive, aimed at improving the manuscript. Criticism should be well-founded and written respectfully and professionally, avoiding offensive, discriminatory, or unnecessarily harsh comments.

Reviewers are responsible for identifying possible signs of ethical misconduct, such as plagiarism, self-plagiarism, data manipulation, duplicate publication, among others, and for reporting these concerns to the editorial team.

Timeliness is crucial for an efficient editorial process. If the reviewer cannot deliver the report within the stipulated deadline, they should notify the editorial team as soon as possible so a replacement can be appointed if needed.

If reviewers identify limitations in their expertise that could compromise the quality of their review, they should inform the editors and, if appropriate, decline the task.

Reviews should address the scientific, methodological, ethical, and stylistic aspects of the manuscript, offering clear and specific suggestions for improvement, as well as a final recommendation consistent with the evaluation.

Revista Sem Aspas values the work of its reviewers and counts on their dedication to ensuring an ethical, rigorous, and high-quality editorial process.