Avaliação por pares

The Mói de Sabedoria Journal adopts a peer review process to ensure rigor, quality, and adherence to scope.

Review Model The evaluation is conducted under a single-blind model: reviewers have access to the authors' identification, while authors do not have access to the reviewers' identity.

Editorial Process Stages

• Editorial triage (desk review): verification of alignment with focus and scope, formal requirements, and minimum manuscript quality;
• Integrity check: verification of originality and potential evidence of plagiarism and/or redundant publication, when applicable;
• Peer review: the manuscript is sent to two reviewers with expertise in the subject matter;
• Editorial decision: based on the reviews, the manuscript may be accepted, accepted with revisions, submitted to a new round of evaluation, or rejected;
• Editing and publication: final review, normalization, copyediting, and publication in continuous flow.

Review Criteria

The reviews consider, among other aspects:

• originality and relevance of the topic;
• clarity of objectives and consistency of the research problem;
• methodological adequacy (when applicable);
• contribution to the field and practical implications;
• structure, language, and formatting;
• quality and currency of references.

Procedure for Divergent Reviews
In the event of a disagreement between the initial two reviewers (recommendation for acceptance versus rejection), the manuscript will be submitted to a third independent expert reviewer for evaluation. The final publication decision lies with the Editor-in-Chief and the Editorial Board, based on a reasoned analysis of all three reviews.

Conflict of Interest
Reviewers must declare potential conflicts of interest. In case of conflict, the editorial office will designate another reviewer.

Timelines
The journal seeks to make the first editorial decision within timeframes compatible with the publication flow. Timelines may vary according to reviewer availability and the need for revisions.

Appeal/Request for Reconsideration
Authors may request reevaluation, with technical justification. The decision regarding reevaluation is the responsibility of the editorial office.