Peer Review Policies

Geografia uses a double-blind evaluation system, thus ensuring the anonymity of authors and evaluators throughout the evaluation process. The editorial process is registered in the Open Journal Systems (OJS).

After the initial submission made by the authors, the texts are previously evaluated by the journal's editorial committee. As long as they meet the requirements contained in the “Guidelines for Authors” section, the works enter the evaluation process, which will be carried out as follows: consultation of two reviewers with at least a doctorate degree, whose area and specialization are in accordance with the topic of the submitted work. Reviewers preferably make up the journal's scientific council, and may also be selected externally, in the form of ad hoc evaluators. In case of conflict between opinions, a third reviewer will be selected to continue the evaluation.

Following the evaluation form provided by Geografia magazine, evaluators will be responsible for issuing an opinion on the structure of the work (coherence of the text and discussion, relevance of the data presented, compliance with the magazine's standards), the writing (spelling, grammar, cohesion and clarity) and theoretical, conceptual and methodological aspects, recommending one of three options:

1 – Unfavorable, not recommending publication;

2 – Favorable, without any restrictions;

3 – Favorable, as long as the proposed reformulation suggestions are observed.

Advices will be shared with the authors through the journal's editorial committee. In case of a favorable opinion provided for in item (3) – with the need for reformulations and corrections highlighted by the evaluators – the authors will have 30 calendar days to present a new version. The corrected manuscript must be resubmitted in two versions: 1) with the corrections highlighted in red font, and; 2) no emphasis on the corrections made. Any reformulations that are not accepted by the authors, in case of disagreement with the opinion or because they feel aggrieved in some way, must be duly written and argued, in a separate document, which must be delivered together with the new version of the work.

After delivery of the new version, the work will undergo screening by the editors again or a new round of evaluation by the responsible reviewers, who will assess whether the corrections were respected and made, partially or fully. The editorial process will not be continued in the event of: 1) non-compliance with the deadlines and standards indicated by the magazine; 2) failure to make the corrections indicated by the reviewers (without presenting counter-arguments).