Definition of peer reviewer

For RHSM, a peer reviewer is a qualified professional specialized in the thematic area of ​​each of the articles submitted to the journal. The following criteria are considered, among others:

1. Must have a master's or doctoral degree.
2. Must have scientific publications with research or studies in the field of social sciences, humanities, and related areas.
3. Should not have the same institutional affiliation as the article author.

By meeting these criteria, you as a professional can become part of the journal's reviewer group, taking into account the following considerations.

Type of review used by RHSM is double-blind: neither the peers nor the authors know each other's names or affiliations. This type of review allows for reduced bias in the evaluation.

Role and function of the peer reviewer.

The peer reviewer is responsible for verifying whether the contents developed in the article meet the standards of excellence established by the scientific community. Standards relate to the scientific method and the proper review of the background supporting the research. They should ensure that the methodologies applied are valid and up-to-date in the discipline, review whether the language used is clear, precise, and unambiguous, ascertain if there was rigor in the analysis, interpretation of results, discussion with the literature, and testing or rejection of the hypothesis. In summary, the peer reviewer is responsible for reviewing the quality of form and content, originality, relevance, contribution, and possible ethical violations of the article submitted to the journal.

Ethical considerations.

As a reviewer, always bear in mind that:

1. Within their responsibilities, the reviewer must maintain the highest degree of confidentiality with the information provided at the time of accepting the review.
2. Must declare if there is any conflict of interest with the article received for review. If so, they must declare themselves unable to review or refuse the review.
3. Must provide an objective and respectful judgment on the quality of the reviewed article, making clear and precise comments on the text. Inform the editor about inconsistencies in the reviewed text that violate research ethics, as well as cases of plagiarism.
4. Finally, they must deliver their evaluation to the journal in a timely manner.

In general, reviewers are responsible for judging the scientific quality of articles regarding their content, checking the relevance, pertinence, and originality of the submitted works, their judgment being fundamental for their acceptance or rejection.

Conflicts of interest.

A conflict of interest may arise when the reviewer cannot evaluate an article objectively and impartially. This situation can occur for any of the following reasons:

1. If they have a personal, family, professional, or commercial relationship with the author.
2. If they have worked or collaborated with the author on research or publication.
3. If they will work with the author on a similar project or research proposal.
4. If they are working on a similar topic or have previously published on it.

Reviewers must report to the editor, in the invitation or during the evaluation process, any conflict of interest.

Evaluation processes and timelines.

When an article meets the journal's policies, the search for peer reviewers begins. Evaluation times may vary, on average, between four (4) and six (6) weeks: one week to select reviewers, one week to check availability, three (3) to four (4) weeks for evaluation.

In the invitation, the title, abstract, and expected times by RHSM for the evaluative concept to be ready are shared with the reviewer. If the reviewer declines, a recommendation for other reviewers will be requested. If accepted, the manuscript is sent without author identification data to ensure double-blind review. The reviewer can make specific comments to facilitate their evaluation, and they are asked to mark the author or user option if they wish to add comments to the manuscript, maintaining the anonymity of the evaluator, if desired. The [evaluation guidelines] outline the criteria to be considered in the article evaluation process and should be completed carefully. It is very important to complete the evaluation form with your data and signature. This entire process is managed through the Open Journal System (OJS).

If, due to circumstances beyond the reviewer's control, it is not possible to meet the proposed deadline for issuing their opinion, the editor expects prior communication before the delivery times to agree on new deadlines.

The criteria to be considered for the evaluation of the article are:

1. Criteria regarding the article's relevance to the journal.
2. Criteria regarding formal aspects of the article.
3. Criteria regarding content or substantive aspects of the article.

The evaluation is conducted online, on the Open Journal System platform, and at the end, there is a space for conclusions and comments, where concise comments to the authors are requested in a minimum of 250 words.

As a reviewer, you will have approximately fifteen (15) days to send back your evaluation. This time may be extended according to your concerns and direct request.