Evaluation

Desk Review

All manuscripts undergo technical and ethical checks after submission is complete. Articles that pass the technical checks are then submitted to scientific evaluation by the editors:

Pertinence - Does the central theme of the article fall within the scope of RBCIAMB?;

Scientific Relevance - Does the manuscript represent a significant scientific contribution to the area of Environmental Sciences?;

Originality - Does it present innovation and progress regarding the state of the art?;

Contextualization - Does the text present interdisciplinary contextualization to establish the interfaces and connections of the specific problem with the context and the field of knowledge? Does the text fit into the area of knowledge in line with the state of the art?;

Ethics - Does the paper present approval from ethics committees when dealing with animals or human experimentation (directly or indirectly)? Does the work make undue promotion or criticism of an individual, organization, and product?;

References - Is the References database primarily composed of peer-reviewed scientific journals from the last five years with a recognized editorial policy?

Manuscripts can be rejected at this stage.

 

Peer review process and editorial Decision

Following the Desk Review, articles that qualify at this stage are forwarded to the Associate Editors and submitted to independent ad hoc reviewers in a "double-blind review" system. The Editorial Team has prepared a form to guide reviewers in evaluating the criteria. When reviewers disagree, the editor may, at their discretion, send the article to a third reviewer or make a decision themselves. All revisions should be carried out primarily in the first round. Articles that still require "Major Revisions" after the first round will be rejected. Additional rounds may be necessary, but only for minor corrections, and after each round, the corresponding author must submit a corrected version of the manuscript, highlighting the changes made, and a letter responding to each reviewer's comment or suggestion. The Editor-in-Chief makes the final decision. This decision is communicated to the authors along with the respective anonymized comments that justify it.

Topics for evaluating scientific consistency

Scientific Relevance: Does the manuscript present an innovative scientific contribution in thematic, theoretical, conceptual, approach, methodological, and/or empirical terms?

Methodological Consistency: Do you think the manuscript is consistent in methodological terms, ensuring the reproducibility and transparency of the research and, where applicable, meeting ethical precepts?

Importance of Results: Are the results presented robust and sufficient to contribute to the scientific debate on the topic and to inferences and conclusions?