Peer Review Process

Peer Review Process

RIIS – Revista de Investigação & Inovação em Saúde adopts a double-blind peer review process to ensure the scientific quality, methodological rigour, relevance, originality, and ethical integrity of the manuscripts it publishes.

In this model, the identity of the authors is concealed from reviewers, and the identity of reviewers is concealed from authors, promoting impartiality, editorial independence, and evidence-based scientific assessment.

Editorial Pre-Screening

After submission, all manuscripts are initially assessed by the Editorial Team, which verifies:

• alignment with the journal’s aims and scope;
• compliance with submission guidelines;
• originality and scientific relevance;
• quality of academic writing;
• compliance with ethical requirements;
• declaration of conflicts of interest;
• adequacy, currency, and quality of references;
• anonymisation of the manuscript for double-blind review;
• completion of mandatory metadata.

Manuscripts that do not meet RIIS’s scientific, ethical, editorial, or formal requirements may be returned to authors for correction or rejected at this stage.

Selection of Reviewers

Manuscripts considered suitable after editorial pre-screening are sent for review by at least two independent reviewers who are experts in the manuscript’s scientific field.

Reviewers are selected according to their academic qualifications, scientific expertise, publication record, methodological competence, institutional affiliation, and absence of conflicts of interest.

When necessary, the Editorial Team may invite additional reviewers, particularly when the reports received are divergent or when the manuscript requires further specialised assessment.

Review Criteria

Reviewers assess manuscripts according to scientific, methodological, ethical, and editorial criteria, including:

• relevance to the journal’s aims and scope;
• originality and contribution to knowledge;
• clarity of objectives or research questions;
• appropriateness of the methodological design;
• rigour in data collection, analysis, and interpretation;
• compliance with applicable ethical principles;
• coherence between results, discussion, and conclusions;
• currency, quality, and relevance of references;
• clarity, organisation, and quality of scientific writing;
• contribution to clinical practice, health education, healthcare management, public health, innovation, or health policy.

Editorial Decision

Based on the reviewers’ reports and the Editorial Team’s assessment, one of the following decisions may be made:

• Accept;
• Accept with minor revisions;
• Revisions required;
• Resubmit for review;
• Reject.

The final editorial decision is made by the Editor-in-Chief or by an assigned editor with no conflict of interest with the authors or the manuscript.

The decision is communicated to the authors with justification, including, whenever applicable, the reviewers’ comments and the necessary guidance for manuscript revision.

Review of Revised Versions

When revisions are requested, authors must submit a revised version of the manuscript together with a detailed response to the comments made by reviewers and the Editorial Team.

The response must clearly and systematically indicate the changes made or justify any suggestions that were not incorporated.

The revised version may be assessed by the Editorial Team or returned to the reviewers, depending on the nature and extent of the requested changes.

Conflicts of Interest

Authors, editors, and reviewers must declare any potential conflict of interest that may influence, or be perceived as influencing, the review process.

Reviewers must decline the review invitation whenever there is a personal, institutional, academic, professional, financial, or other type of conflict of interest.

When an editor has a conflict of interest, the manuscript will be assigned to another independent editor.

Submissions by Members of the Editorial Team

Manuscripts submitted by members of the Editorial Team, Editorial Board, Reviewer Pool, or by authors affiliated with the publisher institution are subject to the same double-blind peer review process applied to all other manuscripts.

In such cases, the author is fully excluded from the editorial handling of the manuscript, reviewer selection, editorial discussion, and final decision-making.

The manuscript will be assigned to an independent editor with no institutional, academic, professional, or personal conflict of interest with the authors.

Confidentiality

All manuscripts under review are treated as confidential documents.

Editors, reviewers, and editorial staff must not disclose, discuss, or use information related to submitted manuscripts before publication.

Confidentiality applies to manuscript content, reviewer reports, editorial communications, and the identity of reviewers within the double-blind peer review process.

Complaints and Appeals

Authors may submit a complaint or appeal regarding an editorial decision, provided that they present clear scientific or procedural grounds.

The Editorial Team will assess the request and may, when necessary, consult additional editors or reviewers.

Submitting an appeal does not guarantee that the editorial decision will be changed, but it ensures a justified reassessment of the process.

Editorial Workflow

The RIIS editorial process includes the following stages:

A — Assignment of a manuscript code;
B — Editorial pre-screening;
C — Peer review;
D — Review supervision;
E — Technical and documentary review;
F — Final review;
G — Composition, graphic design, and layout;
H — Dissemination and publication.

RIIS is committed to ensuring a fair, transparent, rigorous, confidential, and ethically responsible peer review process, aligned with international best practices in scientific publishing.