Peer Review

Chapter I – The Peer Review Process

Art. 1 Ciência da Informação Express adopts a peer review system, ensuring scientific rigor, impartiality, confidentiality, and editorial integrity, under the following modalities:
I – Double-blind review, in which the identities of authors and reviewers are mutually concealed, mandatorily applied to scientific articles, review articles, empirical studies, research reports, and teaching cases;
II – Single-blind review, in which the identity of reviewers is preserved and the identity of authors may be known, applied to the other sections of the journal, such as theoretical essays, interviews, scientific communications, reviews, press releases, and academic-oriented science communication texts;
III – The adopted evaluation modality will be defined according to the document typology of the submission and communicated in the journal's editorial flow, in compliance with the principle of editorial transparency.

Art. 2 All manuscripts submitted to Ciência da Informação Express are initially subject to a preliminary editorial assessment, consisting of a screening to verify:
I – alignment with the journal’s scope;
II – originality and scientific relevance;
III – compliance with the author guidelines;
IV – adherence to ethical principles and good editorial practices.

1. a) Manuscripts classified under item I of Art. 10 shall be forwarded to at least two external reviewers under the double-blind review regime.
   b) Manuscripts classified under item II of Art. 10 shall be submitted to single-blind review, observing the same standards of scientific rigor and editorial integrity.
   c) In the event of divergent reviews, the editorial team may appoint a third reviewer or make a decision based on the manuscript and the issued reviews.
   d) Possible editorial decisions include:
   1 acceptance;
   §2 acceptance with mandatory revisions;
   §3 submission to a new round of review;
   §4 rejection.

Chapter I – Peer Review Process

Art. 1 The journal Ciência da Informação Express adopts the peer review system as a scientific validation tool for submitted manuscripts.

Art. 2 The review methods adopted are:

I – Double-blind peer review for scientific articles and communications, in which authors and reviewers remain anonymous to each other;
II – Single-blind peer review for other sections, in which reviewers have access to the authors’ identities and institutional affiliations.

Chapter II – Editorial Pre-review

Art. 3 All submitted manuscripts undergo a preliminary evaluation by the editorial team.

Art. 4 The following criteria will be considered during the pre-review:

I – Originality;
II – Scientific contribution;
III – Thematic relevance;
IV – Topicality of the subject;
V – Overall text structure;
VI – Compliance with editorial guidelines.

Sole paragraph. If the manuscript does not meet the established criteria, the authors will be notified within 30 (thirty) days regarding its rejection, requested adjustments, or archiving.

Chapter III – Review by Referees

Art. 5 Manuscripts approved in the editorial stage will be sent to at least two ad hoc referees with recognized expertise in the thematic area.

• 1 Referees may:
  I – Approve the manuscript without changes;
  II – Approve with mandatory revisions;
  III – Recommend resubmission after substantial revision;
  IV – Reject the manuscript.
• 2 In case of divergent opinions, the editors may appoint a third reviewer.
  §3 The responsible editor will notify the authors of the editorial decision based on the reviewers’ analyses.

Art. 6 In the case of “Acceptance with mandatory revisions,” authors will have a deadline determined by the editor to submit the revised version.

• 1 The revised version will be evaluated by the editor, who may:
  I – Accept the manuscript;
  II – Request a new round of review;
  III – Reject the manuscript if the changes were not properly addressed.
• 2 Failure to submit the revised version within the established deadline, without formal justification, may result in immediate rejection.

Chapter IV – Rejections and Resubmissions

Art. 7 When the final decision is rejection, the authors will be informed of the grounds for the editorial decision.

Sole paragraph. The manuscript may be resubmitted after substantial revisions, restarting the editorial process and involving new reviewers.

Chapter V – Specific and Ethical Conditions

Art. 8 The editorial team reserves the right to make grammatical, spelling, and formatting corrections to ensure editorial consistency, respecting the author's style.

Art. 9 Submissions with more than 30% textual similarity to other documents, as verified by specific software, may be rejected at any stage of the editorial process.

Art. 10 The average time between acceptance for review and confirmation of publication is approximately 160 (one hundred and sixty) days.

Chapter VI – Publication of Reviews and Author Identification

Art. 11 Reviewers may choose to publish their anonymous reviews alongside the evaluated article.

• 1 The identities of authors and reviewers may be disclosed, provided that both parties explicitly agree, for purposes of collaboration in final manuscript preparation.

Chapter VII – Special Submissions

Art. 12 Preprint submissions will be accepted, provided they undergo the single-blind peer review process.

Art. 13 Research data and supplementary materials may be submitted and published along with the articles, provided they are properly identified and justified.

Chapter VIII – Co-authorship and Metadata

Art. 14 A limit of up to three authors per manuscript is recommended, though not mandatory.

Art. 15 The corresponding author is responsible for accurately completing the co-authorship metadata, which must include:

I – Highest academic degree;
II – Affiliation institution;
III – City, state, and country;
IV – Institutional or personal email;
V – ORCID ID.

Sole paragraph. The recommended presentation model is as follows:
PhD in Information Science. Federal University of Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, Minas Gerais, Brazil.
email@email.com.
https://orcid.org/xxxx-xxxx-xxxx-xxxx

Chapter IX – Confidentiality and Integrity

Art. 16 It is the responsibility of the authors to ensure that submitted files do not contain elements that compromise blind review confidentiality, such as:

I – Author identification in file metadata;
II – Author names in internal comments;
III – Explicit excerpts or signatures.

Art. 17 Incomplete submissions or those with missing documents will be archived or rejected within 15 (fifteen) days after the editorial process begins.