Assetnem procces
The editorial process is divided into three stages: document submission, peer review, and professional editing.
1. Initial Review
Upon receiving the manuscript, the Editorial Committee verifies its compliance with the Journal's Author Guidelines. Papers may be rejected in the initial evaluation for various reasons, such as lack of thematic alignment with the areas covered by the Journal, lack of originality (verified through Turnitin), non-compliance with preparation and presentation guidelines, as well as the relevance and scope of the research. Manuscripts meeting these criteria advance to Peer Review.
Ethics. The Water, Air, and Soil Environmental Journal (RAAAS) adheres to the recommendations and good practices of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), and for this purpose includes within its policy a series of ethical considerations. Finally, if a manuscript is considered viable after editorial review, peer review will commence.
2. Peer Review
This process follows a "double-blind" model, preserving the anonymity of both authors and reviewers to ensure impartiality. Manuscripts accepted for peer review are sent to at least two external referees with academic and research expertise in the field. In case of negative evaluations or lack of response after fifteen days, a third reviewer is consulted. Recommendations may be: Accepted, Accepted with minor changes, Re-submission and re-evaluation, or Rejected. The average review time is up to 6 months, although it may be shorter with timely responses from assigned reviewers.
Submission of Manuscripts. The editorial assistant will send the manuscripts to the reviewers, along with the respective evaluation format, agreeing on a maximum time for the return of their opinion.
Results. Once both opinions are received, the following may occur:
- Approved without changes. Two peer reviewers approve the publication of the manuscript without changes. In such a case, the manuscript undergoes review by the editorial team for final approval.
- Approved subject to changes. The reviewers' opinions are positive, but one or both suggest changes. In this case, the manuscript is returned to the corresponding author, along with adjustment recommendations, for manuscript review and correction.
- The opinions of two peers are negative regarding the publication of the manuscript. In this case, the editorial assistant will inform the corresponding author that the work was rejected, attaching the peers' opinions.
- Peer conflict. One of the selected peers approves the publication of the manuscript, and another one rejects it. In this case, the editorial team will appoint a third reviewer, whose opinion will be final.
Approval. Manuscripts accepted by peer reviewers and corrected by the authors will be considered by the Editorial Committee for publication. This situation will be communicated to the corresponding author.
"Double-Blind" System. Every manuscript will be anonymously evaluated by a minimum of two peers, under the "double-blind" process. This mechanism ensures the anonymity of both authors and reviewers, who will never have direct contact with each other, but only through the editor. Disputes arising in the evaluation process will be resolved by the Editorial Committee.
3. Editorial Decision
The Editor and the Editorial Committee, upon receiving the evaluation results, communicate the editorial decision with substantiated arguments to the corresponding author. If accepted with revisions, the Editor returns the work with the referees' recommendations, which must be implemented and sent to the Editorial Committee within a maximum period of 15 days, along with a letter addressed to each reviewer responding to their suggestions.
Final Review and Publication: Once approved for publication, the process of style correction, layout, and publication on the editorial management platform begins. This process can take up to a month. It is emphasized that, due to the evaluation processes, immediate publication of articles by authors cannot be guaranteed.
Authors' Responsibility. Authors must actively participate in the editing process as soon as the editor requests it. The failure of an author to respond to complete or resolve all editing queries may result in delays in article publication or even the decision to reject its publication.
To facilitate this process, authors are asked to write with the utmost rigor, verifying spelling, using short and homogeneous paragraphs, and properly using punctuation marks, in addition to following the requested editorial norms and conventions. The Editorial Committee reserves the right to modify the title of the documents and to make editorial changes deemed appropriate to ensure that the texts are published in their cleanest, most coherent, and readable version.
