Peer Review Process

A double-blind peer review process (anonymous for both reviewers and authors) is adopted, except for articles available on preprint servers or whose authors opt for open evaluation (Open Science Compliance Form), where a ‘simple-blind’ evaluation occurs. Texts are submitted online and, if following publication standards, are forwarded to a Section Editor for initial assessment.

At this stage, the relevance of the submission to the journal’s scope is assessed, and among other formal aspects considered, the relevance and originality of the topic and the adequacy and density of the theoretical-methodological approach used are highlighted. Only texts approved at this stage will proceed to the next stages of merit evaluation.

If approved in the initial assessment by the Section Editor, they will appoint two ad hoc reviewers according to the research theme. These reviewers must provide a review within 30 days, analyzing the text and recommending revisions, acceptance, or rejection for publication, according to criteria of content relevance, argumentative consistency, theoretical and methodological coherence, structural adequacy, and contributions to the advancement of knowledge in the field.

Articles forward to peer review, after the review process, will be sent to the authors with the editorial decision, indicating required revisions and/or final acceptance or rejection. In the case of required revisions, the articles will be returned to the authors for adjustments, and a new round of review will be requested from the Section Editors and/or ad hoc reviewers.

Upon completion of the ad hoc reviewers' analysis, the Section Editor will send the final decision (where the reviewers’ anonymity is preserved) that will be expressed as follows:

a) Accepted for Publication:The work is fully accepted for publication in one of the upcoming issues of the journal, according to the chronological criterion of completion of the review process.

b) Revisions Required:The modifications must be made by the author(s), who will receive the review with the respective recommendations, returning the revised work within the stipulated period with the changes marked in a distinct color for verification. In the case of a large number of requested changes, the article will be re-submitted to the Section Editors and/or ad hocreviewers for further analysis after the author's adjustments, which may result in acceptance or rejection.

c) Rejected:Refusal of publication, with due justification, based on the analysis of each ad hocreviewer, which is conveyed to the authors while preserving the reviewers’ identities.

All reviews will be available to the authors, ad hoc reviewers, and section editors.

If the author disagrees with the review received, they may request a reconsideration from the journal’s Editorial Board, who, if deemed appropriate, will forward the request to the same reviewers and section editors or, depending on the case, will request a review from another ad hoc reviewer or another Editor.

The Brazilian Journal of Occupational Therapy publishes the name of the editor responsible for the evaluation process in the final version of the article.