Peer review process

Region Científica, in line with its higher purpose, submits manuscripts submitted for publication to evaluation by academic experts, with a preference for external Teacher-Researchers to the publishing entity. The modality adopted by the journal is double-blind, meaning that both the identities of the authors and evaluators remain anonymous throughout the editorial process. The process is carried out in the following stages:

• Initial Review: The Editorial Committee conducts two preliminary reviews. The first review concerns the formality of the manuscript, ensuring that it is submitted in the established template, contains the required formats, and includes all author information. The second review concerns compliance with ethical norms, absence of plagiarism (software report), and, most importantly, relevance to the journal. If the article passes this stage, it will proceed to expert evaluation. Otherwise, it will be returned to the authors with observations for them to make adjustments and start the submission process again, if they so choose. This stage cannot exceed fifteen (15) business days from the submission through OJS, and authors will be informed of any decision.

• Expert Evaluation: The Editorial Committee will assign two experts to provide a professional judgment based on the criteria defined by Región Científica regarding the coherence, quality, command, appropriation, originality, and contribution of the manuscript to the development of worldwide scientific culture. This report will be condensed into an evaluation format, and it must be issued within the next twenty (20) business days following the acceptance of the evaluation, with the possibility of an extension for the same period, provided the request is formalized before the Editorial Committee.

The expert evaluation process may generate the following verdicts: i) Publishable without modifications: The manuscript will be published as is, except for adjustments related to editing and layout; ii) Publishable with slight modifications: The manuscript will be published if the authors make the required adjustments within ten (10) business days. The Editorial Committee is responsible for auditing compliance with the observations and issuing an acceptance or rejection verdict. If accepted, it will proceed to editing and layout; otherwise, it will be returned to the authors and archived; iii) Publishable with substantial modifications: The manuscript must be adjusted in form and content by the authors within fifteen (15) business days of receiving the evaluation and returned to the experts for a second review. They must provide another verdict on the document. If the text is again classified as publishable with substantial modifications, it will be archived; iv) Not publishable: The article is not recommended for publication, and the editorial process must be archived.

In this way, if there are two positive evaluations (i) and (ii), the Editorial Committee will decide on the publication of the manuscript, taking into account all comments and recommendations from the evaluators. If two negative evaluations (iv) are received, the manuscript will be rejected. If there is one positive (i) or (ii) and one negative (iv), the Editorial Committee will assign a third evaluator to decide, and a decision will be made based on their opinion. In any case, it is the responsibility of the Editorial Committee to make decisions and take actions related to the editorial process.

Note 1: All formats described here and other related to the editorial flow are available in the guidelines and directives, depending on the role (author/evaluator). Therefore, we invite you to visit the respective functionality. If you have any difficulty accessing them, please write to the Editor's email.