Instructions for Reviewers

Instructions for reviewers

After submission and the initial editorial screening stage, the manuscripts deemed as adhering to the journal scope are forwarded to the Editor in Chief, who makes a preliminary assessment regarding scientific relevance, originality, methodological clarity and contributions to the Stomatherapy area. Once compliance with the journal's editorial policies is verified, the manuscript is then assigned to an Associate Editor to continue the editorial process and designate the corresponding reviewer.

The following is considered when selecting the reviewer: previous experience in the journal, relevant scientific production and performance in the topic area.

Invited reviewers are given specific directions for the peer review process, as well as access to the journal's editorial guidelines and policies. It is expected that the opinion should be issued within the stipulated timeframe, contributing to the editorial process dynamism and quality.

Not complying with the deadlines, poor technical quality in the opinions issued or identifying anti-ethical behaviors may result in ceasing to invite a given reviewer for future assessments.

Conflicts of interest

Before accepting an invitation to evaluate materials, all reviewers must carefully analyze the existence of potential conflicts of interest that may impair their impartiality. The following cases are considered conflicts of interest:

  • Financial: connections with institutions, companies, products or technologies related to the manuscript (funding, counseling and patents, among others);
  • Personal or professional: close relationships with the authors, recent collaboration (last three years) or institutional affiliation;
  • Potential: situations that may be interpreted as capable of influencing scientific judgment.

In case there is any conflict, the reviewer must immediately inform the editor and refuse to assess the material, if necessary.

Confidentiality must be preserved in all stages of the process. The manuscript content must not be shared, discussed or used for own profit.

Evaluation recommendations

The evaluation must be conducted in a critical, constructive and objective way, considering the following aspects:

  • Topic relevance and originality;
  • Research question clarity and suitability of the objectives;
  • Methodological rigor and suitability of the analyses;
  • Coherence across results, discussion and conclusions;
  • Topicality and pertinence of the references;
  • Scientific writing quality and text organization;
  • Contribution to Stomatherapy clinical practice, teaching or research.

In the first reading (exploratory), it is recommended for evaluators to identify the following:

  • The main study question and its relevance;
  • Degree of innovation and contribution to knowledge;
  • Text clarity and comprehensibility;
  • Consistency between data presented and conclusions;
  • Pertinence of all tables and figures.

How to write opinions

Opinions must be made in the OJS platform and written in a clear, objective, respectful and technically grounded way. It is recommended for evaluators to:

  • Present structured comments indicating strengths and limitations found in the manuscript;
  • Suggest specific and feasible improvements;
  • Avoid personal criticism or inadequate language;
  • Differentiate comments aimed at the authors from those confidential to the editor.

The final recommendations must indicate one of the following decisions:

  • Accept;
  • Request changes;
  • Reject.

Artificial Intelligence use

All evaluations must reflect critical, independent and human judgment. Due to risks related to confidentiality and copyright, it is not allowed to use Artificial Intelligence tools for the scientific analysis of manuscripts.

AI tools can only be used in a limited way for the linguistic review of own opinions (grammar, spelling or translation), as long as they do not compromise confidentiality and that such use is duly stated, when applicable.