Peer Review

Pre-analysis: The Scientific Editor evaluates the manuscript based on its originality, validity, and relevance and interest to the public health area and decides whether the manuscript proceeds for evaluation by associate editors or if it is rejected immediately (“desk-rejected”).

Peer review: The Associate Editor evaluates the manuscript and chooses possible reviewers according to their area of expertise (ideally two) so they can issue their recommendations. If the Associate Editor considers that the received opinions are insufficient for decision-making, they may appoint other rapporteurs. Based on the reviews, the Associate Editor may decide to accept, refuse (if the manuscript has important deficiencies), or suggest a new submission, in which case they must indicate the important modifications for possible reformulation in their comments (which will be reevaluated by rapporteurs).

RSP adopts double-blind peer reviews, that is, neither the reviewers know the authors’ identity, nor the authors know who reviewed their manuscript. In the final version for publication, RSP inserts the names of the evaluating editors. RSP offers reviewers the option of dialoguing directly with the author with or without disclosing their identity.

Preprints are versions of authors’ manuscripts that are yet to be reviewed by any editor and that have been deposited on preprint servers and can be submitted to journals for publication. Preprints share the originality in article publication with journals. Thus, the condition for submitting articles to Revista de Saúde Pública is that it has neither been published in whole or in part in books or journals nor simultaneously sent to another journal.

RSP accepts the submission of manuscripts that have been published on reliable preprint platforms such as SciELO Preprints, arXiv, bioRxiv, and medRxiv (other servers will be reviewed by the editors). Authors in this modality must inform the virtual location of their articles (link, DOI, or other) so they can undergo the regular double-blind peer review process (described below). Comments received on preprints may be considered by RSP editors during peer reviews. Accepted articles that remain available on preprint servers must provide the link to the version published by RSP.

Public trustworthiness during peer reviews and the credibility of published articles partially depend on how editors manage conflicts of interest during writing, peer review, and decision-making. Conflicts of interest may arise when authors, reviewers, or editors have interests (whether apparent or not) that could influence manuscript preparation or evaluation. Conflicts of interest may be personal, commercial, political, academic, or financial.

Authors are responsible for acknowledging and disclosing financial or other conflicts that may have influenced their research at the time they submit their manuscripts. Authors’ manuscript should acknowledge all financial support for their research and other financial or personal connections regarding it. Reviewers must inform the editors of any conflicts of interest that may influence their opinion of manuscripts and, if applicable, must declare themselves unfit to review it. Authors should contact the RSP editorial secretariat if they are unsure of what may constitute potential conflicts of interest.