Peer Review Policy

NATURALISTA CAMPANO employs a rigorous peer review process to ensure the quality, integrity, and relevance of the research published in the journal. The peer review process is designed to provide constructive feedback to authors, evaluate the originality and significance of their work, and maintain high standards of academic excellence. The following outlines the peer review policy of NATURALISTA CAMPANO:

  1. Double-Blind Peer Review:

    • NATURALISTA CAMPANO follows a double-blind peer review process, where the identities of both authors and reviewers are concealed throughout the review process.
    • This ensures impartiality and eliminates bias based on authorship, affiliation, or reputation.

  2. Reviewer Selection:

    • Reviewers are selected based on their expertise, experience, and relevance to the subject matter of the manuscript.
    • Reviewers may include academics, researchers, practitioners, or experts in the field who possess the necessary qualifications to critically evaluate the manuscript.

  3. Review Criteria:

    • Reviewers are asked to evaluate manuscripts based on several criteria, including:
      • Originality and significance of the research
      • Methodological rigor and validity of findings
      • Clarity and coherence of presentation
      • Relevance to the scope of the journal

  4. Peer Review Process:

    • Upon submission, manuscripts undergo an initial assessment by the editorial team to ensure they meet the journal's scope and formatting guidelines.
    • Submissions that pass the initial screening are assigned to independent reviewers who evaluate the manuscript's quality and provide detailed feedback.
    • Reviewers assess the strengths and weaknesses of the manuscript, identify areas for improvement, and make recommendations regarding its suitability for publication.
    • Authors receive anonymized comments and suggestions from reviewers to help them revise and enhance their manuscript.

  5. Editorial Decision:

    • Based on the reviewers' feedback and recommendations, the editor-in-chief or handling editor makes an editorial decision regarding the manuscript.
    • Possible decisions include acceptance, revision with minor or major changes, or rejection.
    • Editors ensure that decisions are fair, transparent, and consistent with the journal's standards and objectives.

  6. Confidentiality and Anonymity:

    • Reviewers are required to maintain confidentiality regarding the content of the manuscript and their review.
    • Reviewers' identities are not disclosed to the authors, and authors' identities are not disclosed to the reviewers to ensure unbiased evaluation.

  7. Timeliness:

    • NATURALISTA CAMPANO is committed to ensuring timely and efficient peer review processes.
    • Reviewers are encouraged to submit their evaluations within a specified timeframe to minimize delays in the publication process.

NATURALISTA CAMPANO values the contributions of reviewers and acknowledges their crucial role in maintaining the quality and integrity of the journal. The editorial team appreciates the dedication and expertise of reviewers in providing constructive feedback and ensuring the scholarly excellence of published research.