Evaluation form

For RHSM, it is important that authors and reviewers understand the article evaluation process and the criteria used to assess manuscripts.

The peer review process is central to our editorial process and allows us to identify articles that meet the quality criteria for publication.

The review model followed by the journal is double-blind peer review: neither the authors nor the reviewers know each other's identities. Please consider the following:

• The reviewer should respond to the evaluation guidelines online through the OJS platform.
• Maintain the material sent to you and the evaluation report confidential, not to be shared or used outside the process.
• Preserve confidentiality and anonymity.
• Declare any conflicts of interest that may prevent you from conducting the evaluation.
• Decline this invitation if the article's topic does not fit your academic profile or thematic specialty.
• Objectively review the quality of the article.
• Be clear, technical, and argumentative in your feedback.
• Be objective and neutral in your criticisms, justifying your statements and providing constructive comments.
• Refrain from making demands on the authors that exceed the limits and objectives of the research.
• Inform the editor if you find similarities between the article and previously published or under review work.
• Check for plagiarism or self-plagiarism.
• Report to the editor if there are suspicions or reasonable doubts about the truthfulness, data manipulation, or bias in the research.
• Check the information sources cited in the article and suggest modifications if necessary.
• Submit the requested evaluations on time or communicate in advance with the editor in case of anticipated delays.

[EVALUATION GUIDELINES]