Peer Review Model

Prismalia Journal applies an external single-anonymized peer-review process. Reviewers know the identity of the authors, while the identities of reviewers are not disclosed to authors.

This model allows reviewers to assess the manuscript in its full academic and institutional context while protecting reviewer confidentiality. Editorial decisions must be based on scientific quality, originality, methodological rigor, ethical compliance, relevance and contribution to the journal's scope.

Editorial and Peer-Review Process

1. Submission and Administrative Verification

After submission, the editorial team verifies that the manuscript includes the required files, metadata, author information, declarations and supplementary documents.

Manuscripts that are incomplete or do not comply with the journal's basic submission requirements may be returned to the authors before editorial assessment begins.

2. Initial Editorial Screening

The Editor-in-Chief or a designated handling editor evaluates the manuscript's relevance to the journal's scope, scientific quality, originality, methodological adequacy, ethical compliance and conformity with the author guidelines.

Manuscripts that fall outside the scope, present substantial methodological weaknesses, do not comply with ethical requirements or fail to meet minimum editorial standards may be rejected without external review.

The journal seeks to communicate the result of the initial editorial screening within approximately 5 calendar days.

3. Similarity and Integrity Verification

Before or during the editorial assessment, the manuscript may be examined using similarity-detection tools and other editorial checks intended to identify possible plagiarism, redundant publication, manipulated content, inappropriate attribution or other integrity concerns.

Similarity percentages are not interpreted automatically. The editorial team evaluates the nature, location and relevance of the detected similarities before making a decision.

4. Reviewer Selection and Assignment

Manuscripts that pass the initial screening are normally assigned to at least two independent reviewers with appropriate expertise in the subject area and methodology of the submission.

Reviewers may be selected from the journal's reviewer database, scientific network or external specialists. The editor must avoid assigning reviewers with personal, institutional, professional, financial or academic conflicts of interest.

5. External Peer Review

Reviewers are generally asked to submit their evaluations within 14 calendar days. Extensions may be granted when justified and when they do not unduly delay the editorial process.

Reviewers assess, as applicable:

• Originality and relevance of the contribution.
• Alignment with the journal's scope.
• Clarity of the research problem and objectives.
• Methodological rigor and reproducibility.
• Validity and interpretation of results.
• Quality of discussion and conclusions.
• Use and relevance of references.
• Ethical compliance and transparency.
• Clarity, organization and academic writing.

Reviewers may recommend:

• Accept.
• Accept with minor revisions.
• Major revisions required.
• Reject.

Reviewer recommendations are advisory. The final decision remains the responsibility of the editor.

6. Editorial Decision

Once the required reviews have been received, the handling editor evaluates the reports, resolves inconsistencies when necessary and issues an editorial decision.

The journal seeks to communicate the initial decision within approximately 5 calendar days after receiving the final required review.

Possible editorial decisions include:

• Accept.
• Minor revisions required.
• Major revisions required.
• Reject.

7. Author Revisions

Authors are normally granted approximately 5 calendar days to complete minor revisions and 10 calendar days to complete major revisions. Reasonable extensions may be requested before the deadline.

Each revised submission must include:

• A revised version of the manuscript.
• A detailed point-by-point response to all reviewer and editor comments.
• A clear explanation when a requested change has not been made.
• Any additional files or evidence requested during review.

Failure to submit the revision within the established period, without prior communication, may result in the manuscript being closed or treated as a new submission.

8. Re-review

Revised manuscripts, especially those requiring major changes, may be returned to the original reviewers or sent to additional reviewers.

The re-review period is normally approximately 14 calendar days, although the actual duration may vary according to reviewer availability and the complexity of the revisions.

9. Final Editorial Decision

The final decision is issued after the editor verifies that the authors have adequately addressed the scientific, methodological, ethical and editorial concerns raised during review.

Acceptance is not based solely on favorable reviewer recommendations. The editor must confirm that the manuscript meets the journal's quality standards and publication policies.

10. Copyediting and Production

Accepted manuscripts proceed to copyediting, metadata verification, layout, proofreading and final production.

Authors may be asked to review proofs and correct production errors. Substantial changes to the accepted content are not normally permitted at this stage unless they are necessary to correct a verified error.

11. Publication

Once production is complete, the article is published online under the journal's continuous publication model and incorporated into the annual volume corresponding to its publication year.

Indicative Timeline

The following periods are editorial targets rather than guaranteed deadlines. Actual processing times may vary according to manuscript complexity, reviewer availability, number of review rounds and the authors' response time.

Reviewer Responsibilities

Reviewers are expected to:

• Accept reviews only within their field of competence.
• Provide objective, constructive and evidence-based comments.
• Submit the review within the agreed timeframe.
• Maintain the confidentiality of the manuscript and review.
• Disclose any actual, potential or perceived conflict of interest.
• Decline the invitation when impartiality cannot be guaranteed.
• Identify relevant ethical, methodological or reporting concerns.
• Avoid offensive, discriminatory or personally directed language.
• Refrain from contacting authors directly about the manuscript.
• Refrain from uploading confidential manuscripts to unauthorized artificial intelligence or external processing systems.

Author Responsibilities During Review

Authors are expected to:

• Respond respectfully and completely to reviewer comments.
• Submit revised files within the assigned timeframe.
• Clearly identify the changes made to the manuscript.
• Provide evidence or justification when a recommendation is not adopted.
• Inform the editor of errors, conflicts of interest or ethical concerns identified during the process.
• Avoid attempting to identify or contact anonymous reviewers.

Editorial Responsibilities

Editors are responsible for:

• Selecting qualified and independent reviewers.
• Managing conflicts of interest.
• Protecting reviewer confidentiality.
• Evaluating reviewer reports critically and impartially.
• Ensuring that editorial decisions are supported by appropriate academic and ethical considerations.
• Requesting additional review when the available evidence is insufficient.
• Communicating decisions and required revisions clearly to authors.

Confidentiality

Manuscripts under review are confidential documents. Editors, reviewers and other authorized participants must not disclose, distribute, reproduce or use manuscript content outside the editorial process.

Reviewer identities are protected under the journal's single-anonymized model. The journal may disclose reviewer information only when required by law, a formal investigation or an applicable ethical procedure.

Conflicts of Interest

Editors and reviewers must disclose relationships or circumstances that could affect, or reasonably appear to affect, their impartiality.

Potential conflicts may include:

• Recent collaboration with an author.
• Institutional or supervisory relationships.
• Direct academic competition.
• Personal relationships or disputes.
• Financial or commercial interests.
• Participation in the research being evaluated.

When a conflict exists, the editor or reviewer must withdraw from the relevant editorial activity.

Appeals and Complaints

Authors may appeal an editorial decision when they believe that a substantial factual, procedural, ethical or interpretative error affected the outcome.

Appeals must be submitted through the journal's official editorial email and must include a clear explanation supported by specific evidence. Disagreement with the outcome alone does not constitute sufficient grounds for an appeal.

Appeals are reviewed by an editor who was not directly involved in the disputed decision whenever this is reasonably possible. The result of the appeal is communicated to the corresponding author and is considered final.

Editorial Workflow Diagram

The following interactive diagram summarizes the main stages of the editorial and publication process.