Peer Review Process

Peer Review Process

Debates in Psychiatry defines in its editorial policy the following criteria for the evaluation process: adequacy to the journal's focus and scope, technical (Vancouver), grammatical and formal norms, relevance, content, textual coherence, and theoretical and methodological consistency.

> After the verification of formal and legal aspects (desk review), and the pre-evaluation and approval by the Senior or Executive Editor, each manuscript submitted will be forwarded to an editor in chief who, after accepting it, will designate two external reviewers, unrelated to the editorial team and the publishing institution, for evaluation using a standard form (double blind peer review). In case of disagreement among referees, the manuscript will be submitted to a third referee, without the referee's knowledge, to break the tie.

> The editors' final decision will be shared with the author(s), together with the anonymous evaluations (suggestions and/or criticisms). In cases where modifications are requested, the authors should deposit in OJS the revised original, with the suggestions suggested by the reviewers, within 30 days at the latest

> They should access the journal with their password, click on the link active submissions, and then on the option send file. They should post, in the comments field, in the record of their article, point by point the changes made

> The revised file and comments will be visible in the article's record for editors, who will proceed with the submission in the editorial flow through the OJS system.