Peer Review

Cognitio relies on double-blind peer review, ensuring the anonymity of authors and reviewers during the review process. However, progressively seeking alignment with best practices in open science, starting in 2023, the journal will accept manuscripts submitted previously or in parallel to the preprints platforms, and may adopt open peer review, with prior consent of authors and reviewers. The publication of an article that has been deposited as a preprint will be considered unpublished and will have its own DOI, referencing the DOI previously registered in the preprint platform. In the same way, authors will be encouraged to deposit and share the data, codes and/or methods used in the production of the manuscript in repositories, and the responsible author will be responsible for informing the deposit location in order to allow the referees and editors to access it whenever necessary. However, the content of the material submitted for evaluation cannot have been previously published or submitted to other journals.

For the selection of manuscripts, originality, relevance of topics, and quality of scientific methodology, as well as compliance with the editorial standards adopted by the journal, are evaluated. Submission of manuscripts in disagreement with the format described in this document may result in the manuscript being returned. All the content published by Cognitio is submitted to peer review, except for editorials that are produced by the Editorial Board itself.

The manuscripts are received by the editorial office, which will initially check for similarity of content (plagiarism) with other texts available on the web, using the Similarity Check/iThenticate system. In case of plagiarism detection, Cognitio will follow the COPE “Code of Conduct and Best Practice: Guidelines for Journal Editors.”

For manuscripts with little or no similarity in content, an Editor will be assigned who will appoint two to four external reviewers (ad hoc reviewers) in double-blind mode, ensuring complete anonymity. Such reviewers must have no conflict of interest and must be committed to fair judgment. Their conclusions must be objective, pointing out relevant articles that have not been cited. The reviewers must also treat the articles with confidentiality. A conflict of interest is considered to exist when an author (or the institution to which the author is affiliated), reviewer, or editor has financial or personal relationships that could improperly influence their actions, ranging from insignificant to major in the potential to influence judgment. Not all relationships, however, represent true conflicts of interest, which depends on whether the individual believes that the relationship is affecting their scientific judgment. Financial relationships (such as employment, consulting, stock ownership, and paid expert testimony) are the most easily identifiable conflicts of interest, but conflicts may occur for other reasons, such as personal relationships, academic competition, and intellectual passion.

After receiving the evaluations, the Editor will decide on the manuscript in accordance with the recommendations of the reviewers, and may accept it in the form in which it was submitted, reject it, or request revisions. The manuscript that needs revision will be sent to the authors, who must submit a new version along with a letter to the Editor, in which they must comment on each of the reviewers' recommendations. Additional and/or changed paragraphs must be highlighted in the text. If the author does not agree with the reviewer's suggestions, it is necessary to explain the reasons. After checking the compliance of the new version with the recommendations, the Editor shall give the final decision, or exceptionally, forward for another round of evaluation if the changes have not been sufficiently addressed.

The entire process is available to authors at any time via the journal's online management system. In cases where the authors do not agree with the final decision, they may appeal the decision by sending an e-mail to the Editor-in-Chief, who will review the process and may reconsider, if justified. The published article will bear the name of the Editor conducting the evaluation process. If a challenge to a decision of Cognitio is related to misconduct, a decision-making committee consisting of members of the editorial board and others from outside will be constituted.

Published articles that contain seriously flawed data, so that their findings and conclusions cannot be trusted, can be retracted in order to correct the scientific record. Additions, corrections, and retractions may be requested by the author or initiated by the Editor-in-Chief after discussion with the corresponding author of a particular article. Readers who detect important errors in the work of others should contact the corresponding author of that work. All additions, corrections, and retractions are subject to the approval of the Editor-in-Chief. Minor corrections and additions, however, will not be published. The corresponding author of the paper must obtain the approval of all coauthors before requesting/submitting additions, corrections, and retractions or providing evidence that such approval has been requested. The originally published article will remain on the web, except in extraordinary circumstances.