Peer review

The selection and publication policies of the articles are established by the editorial objectives, in line with the recommendations of the editorial teams. The editors pre-screen the articles, checking that they follow the norms and thematic areas of the journal. In case of positive answers, the articles are sent, without identifying the authors, to the referees.

In the Double blind peer review process, Ad Hoc reviewers, who are specialists in the themes of Geography, including related areas, receive articles without identification of the author (s) and follow a script established in a evaluation form (Guidance: Article evaluation), which will serve as a parameter regarding the quality of the work evaluated. After accepting to evaluate the article, the referee will have up to 30 days to send us the evaluation. If the term exceeds 30 days, given a justification, the referee will have a new term, which will be 15 days. Failing to meet the deadlines, the referee will be excused from the evaluation process and the Editorial Committee will choose another referee.

At the end of the evaluation, the referee will present the recommendation, which may be in the following terms: a) acceptance; b) mandatory corrections; c) submit again for evaluation; and d) reject. The Editorial Team will make the decision to publish the article, when the two referees indicate acceptance, in the evaluation process. In view of the indication of mandatory corrections, the author (s) will have to send a final version, meeting the requests for reformulations, which may be reassessed by the referee, when making the final decision to accept or not the article. In case of divergences in the evaluation, when one reviewer approves and the other disapproves, the article will be evaluated by a third reviewer; based on his evaluation, the decision may be to accept or reject the article. Note: if one opinion "reject" and another opinion "resubmit for evaluation", the article will be rejected.