Peer review process

ARTICLE EVALUATION PROCESS

The evaluation of submitted articles is carried out in two distinct phases to ensure scientific rigor: 1) Editorial Review and 2) Academic Review.

1. Editorial Review (Desk Review) Once authors submit the required documentation through the platform, the Editorial Board initiates the editorial review process to verify compliance with the journal's scope and formatting guidelines. Priority will be given to texts whose bibliography is managed electronically and includes active hyperlinks to the respective DOIs. Upon approval in this phase, the corresponding author will be formally notified within a maximum of 10 business days of the manuscript's acceptance to begin the peer review process.

2. Academic Review (Double-Blind Peer Review) This review is conducted under strict double-blind methodology (double-anonymous peer review):

  • All texts will be sent to two academic experts affiliated with institutions other than that of the authors.

  • The reviewers will analyze the theoretical and methodological relevance, consistency with the field of study, the significance of the findings, and the timeliness of the bibliography. They will have a deadline of up to six weeks to submit their evaluation.

  • Reviewers will issue their comments based on four possible outcomes:

    1. Accepted without revisions.

    2. Accepted with MINOR revisions (does not require a new round of review).

    3. Accepted with MAJOR revisions (requires a second round of review).

    4. Rejected (not publishable).

  • For publication, it is essential that two reviews are positive. In the event of one positive and one negative review, the text will be sent to a third specialist reviewer to break the tie.

  • The editorial management will ensure that the reviews provided to the authors contain solid and constructive arguments. The author will receive the content of the review in a blind format.

  • If the author receives feedback requesting changes, they will have a period of 15 calendar days (for minor revisions) or 30 calendar days (for major revisions) to submit the corrected version.

  • This revision procedure may be repeated for a maximum of two rounds. If the manuscript does not meet the required quality after the second attempt, it will be rejected.

  • Appeals: If the author disagrees with any requested revision, they may appeal by presenting a reasoned rebuttal to the Editorial Board.

  • Final Editing: Accepted documents will undergo copyediting and typesetting. A galley proof (preliminary version) will be sent to the authors for final review. They will have five calendar days to provide their approval; failure to respond will be assumed as tacit approval. Copyediting ensures syntactic and semantic consistency to guarantee communicative effectiveness, always respecting the scientific content established by the authors.

STATEMENT OF ETHICAL CONDUCT FOR DOUBLE-BLIND REVIEWERS

Peer review is the pillar of academic integrity. At Verbum et Lingua, we operate with a double-blind (double-anonymous) review model, where the identities of authors and reviewers remain hidden from each other. We expect our reviewers to adhere to the following ethical guidelines, based on COPE standards:

1. Confidentiality and Use of Artificial Intelligence:

  • Reviewers must treat all manuscripts as strictly confidential documents.

  • AI Prohibition: It is strictly prohibited to upload the manuscript, in whole or in part, into public generative Artificial Intelligence tools (e.g., ChatGPT, Claude) to generate reports, summaries, or evaluations, as this violates copyright and the confidentiality of the unpublished document.

  • Reviewers must not discuss the manuscript with third parties or involve other researchers in the review without explicit permission from the editor. Information obtained must not be used for personal gain or to discredit others.

2. Impartiality and Conflicts of Interest:

  • Reviewers should only accept the review if they possess the necessary expertise and can provide an impartial judgment, free from biases regarding nationality, gender, religion, or institutional affiliation.

  • Given that the review is double-blind: If a reviewer suspects the identity of the author(s) and this creates a conflict of interest (e.g., they are colleagues at the same institution, recent co-authors, or maintain a mentor/mentee relationship), they must decline the review and notify the editor immediately.

3. Professional Conduct and Timeliness:

  • The reviewer is expected to respond to the invitation within a reasonable timeframe and submit their review within the agreed period. If unforeseen circumstances arise, they must notify the editor promptly.

  • The review must be objective, specific, and constructive, offering well-founded feedback to improve the manuscript. Hostile, defamatory comments, or personal attacks are strictly prohibited.

  • The reviewer should not attempt to rewrite the article in their own personal style if the original text is clear and sound.

4. Suspected Ethical Violations:

  • If the reviewer detects irregularities (suspicion of fabricated data, substantial plagiarism, redundant publication, or undeclared use of AI by the authors), they must stop the review and report confidentially and directly to the editor, without attempting to investigate on their own.