Peer-Review

 

  • Regular manuscripts sent to TOMO are reviewed through the double-blind peer review system. Manuscripts sent to special issues also go through a double review system; one review is from the special issue editor (not a blind review), and the second review follows the single-blind peer review process. Preprints are reviewed through an open peer-review process. These evaluation processes are aligned with the principles of Open Science.

 

  • To access the general profile of TOMO, please click on “About the Journal”.

 

  • TOMO was closed for new submissions during the months of April, May and June 2023 to be updated 
    in accordance to new demands of the editorial ecology. From July 2023 onward, 
    the TOMO journal has new guidelines for submission and evaluation of all manuscripts.

 

  • All submissions are evaluated by TOMO’s editorial team and will only move forward to the peer-review stage if they are in accordance with TOMO’s focus and scope and if they meet all the submission requirements.

 

  • The average timeline for submission, evaluation, review, and publication is 06 months.

 

  • Manuscript that move forward to the peer-review stage must have at least two positive reviews to be considered for publication in TOMO.

 

  • Peer reviewers must have a PhD degree. At least 90% of the reviewers must be external to UFS. For each issue of the journal, it is recommended that at least 20% of the reviewers are foreign.

 

  • Reviewers must be registered in the TOMO OJS platform and must declare potential conflicts of interest.

 

  • The expected timeline for the evaluation of a manuscript is six months (counting from the submission date). If approved by the reviewers, the manuscript will follow the steps of mandatory corrections (if any), grammatical review, and formatting. The manuscript will be published in a continuous flow, as soon as these steps are completed.

 

  • General information and questions of the evaluation form to be filled by the reviewers are listed below:

 

a) Reviewers are informed of the deadlines to complete their reviews.

b) Is the title of the manuscript understandable, concise and does it reflect the content of the article?

c) Is the abstract well written? Does it present an introduction, objectives, and conclusions, reflecting the entire article?

d) Are the keywords adequate?

e) Is the manuscript written in a proper language and grammar?

f) Is the manuscript well structured? Does it present a coherent argumentation, starting with introduction, development, conclusion?

g) Does the manuscript use adequate format and bibliography, with concise and coherent citations and notes?

h) Is the argument original and innovative for the Social Sciences? Does it represent a significant contribution to the area?

i) Finally, the reviewer can write a text bringing the negative and positive points as well as the final opinion that will sustain one of these three choices: “For publication without reservations”; “For publication with reservations”; or “For non-publication”.

 

  • TOMO must notify the author(s) of each review step, as follows:

 

a) “Your article was sent today to the reviewers”

b) “Your article was sent today for grammatical review”

c) “Your article was sent today for formatting”

 

  • After receiving the manuscript with the grammatical, spelling, and ABNT review, the authors return two versions of the manuscript: One version with markings (using the “alteration control” tool) so that the editorial team can verify potential edits. One final version with no markings (all edits incorporated).

 

  • Once the review process is completed, TOMO informs all the reviewers if the manuscript was accepted for publication or not and shares with them a document containing all the reviews the manuscript received.

 

  • If the manuscript is published, the reviews are also published and the names of the editors involved in the editorial process become known. The reviewers are consulted on the possibility of publishing their names in their respective reviews. If they do not agree the review will be published anonymously.

 

Check list peer-review process:

 

Step 01: Manuscript is analyzed by the editorial team.

Step 02: Authors are notified if the manuscript will go forward to the peer-review stage or not. If the decision is to move the manuscript forward to peer-review authors are notified when the manuscript is sent to the reviewers.

Step 03: Reviewers have a period of 1 week to agree to review and 4 weeks to issue the review. If the reviewer is not available the manuscript is sent to another reviewer, until two reviewers accept to review the manuscript. If a reviewer misses the deadline for returning the review, 2 reminders are sent and 1 more week is given to finish the review. If the review is not uploaded after this, the reviewer is replaced.

Step 04: If the decision is for publication and there is a need for corrections, the authors receive the reviews and are given 1 month to return the manuscript with the requested edits. If there is no need for corrections, the manuscript is forwarded to grammar, spelling, and ABNT formatting review.

Step 05: After receiving the corrected version of the manuscript the editorial team checks whether the mandatory corrections have been made. If they have been made, the authors are notified that the article has been forwarded to grammar, spelling, and ABNT formatting review. Normally, the timeline for this review is around 20 days.

Step 06: After receiving the revised manuscript the authors have up to one week to accept, reject, or complete the suggestions issued by the grammar, spelling, and ABNT formatting revision in accordance with the ABNT rules.

Step 07: The authors return two versions of the manuscript: one in which they keep the “control alterations” tool so that the editorial team can verify what was accepted, rejected or changed in the manuscript. The other is the final version, with all changes incorporated.