All submissions sent to Revista IBERC undergo an editorial procedure composed of successive stages of preliminary screening, peer review, and final editorial decision. The purpose of this process is to ensure the formal compliance of manuscripts, their adherence to the Journal’s editorial scope, their originality, and their scientific quality.

The first stage consists of a preliminary review of submissions by the Journal’s Executive Board, in a desk review procedure. At this stage, the Board verifies compliance with the Guidelines for Authors, the formal adequacy of the manuscript, the presence of the mandatory elements of the submission, and the minimum compatibility of the text with the Journal’s editorial requirements. An initial textual similarity check is also carried out in order to identify possible indications of plagiarism, self-plagiarism, duplicate submission, or improper use of sources.

If the manuscript does not comply with the Guidelines for Authors, presents relevant formal non-compliance, or reveals serious indications of plagiarism, self-plagiarism, or editorial duplication, the submission may be archived by the Executive Board, without prejudice to the possibility of a new submission, when applicable, provided that the identified deficiencies have been corrected.

Once the formal screening has been completed, the Executive Board analyzes the manuscript’s thematic adherence to the editorial scope of Revista IBERC, as well as its relevance to the field of civil liability and related areas. At this stage, the innovative character of the proposal, the timeliness of the subject, the clarity of the intended scientific contribution, and the degree of originality of the work are also considered. In the event of rejection during the preliminary review, the authors will be informed of the decision and the manuscript will be archived.

Approval at the desk review stage does not imply acceptance of the manuscript for publication. This stage is preliminary in nature and serves only to verify whether the submission meets the minimum conditions required to proceed to peer review.

If approved in the preliminary review, the manuscript will be sent to two external ad hoc reviewers, preferably PhD holders or specialists with academic production compatible with the subject matter of the submission. The review will follow the double-blind peer review system, in which the identity of the authors is not disclosed to the reviewers and the identity of the reviewers is not disclosed to the authors.

Reviewers shall examine the manuscript in terms of both form and content, observing formal, methodological, theoretical, ethical, and scientific criteria. The review shall consider, in particular, compliance with the Journal’s editorial rules and applicable technical standards; the clarity, accuracy, and adequacy of the title, abstract, and keywords; the delimitation of the research problem; the coherence between objectives, methodology, and development; the consistency of the theoretical framework; the timeliness and relevance of the references; the originality of the hypothesis or approach; the quality of the argumentation; the relevance of the scientific contribution; and the adequacy of the conclusions in relation to the arguments developed.

From a formal perspective, the manuscript will be assessed for compliance with the rules of the Brazilian Association of Technical Standards — ABNT, when applicable, as well as with the specific rules of Revista IBERC. The textual organization, language accuracy, structural coherence, clarity of exposition, and adequacy of citations and references will also be considered.

From a methodological perspective, the review will assess whether the manuscript presents a clearly delimited research problem, coherent objectives, an adequate justification, and a methodological path compatible with the proposal developed. The evaluation will also take into account the correspondence between the method declared and the way in which the research was effectively conducted.

From a theoretical perspective, the adequacy of the theoretical framework, the depth of the literature review, the insertion of the work into the current state of knowledge, and the use of relevant, qualified, and up-to-date sources will be examined. The Journal values works that critically engage with specialized literature and present an effective contribution to the development of the field under investigation.

From an ethical perspective, the review will consider compliance with citation rules, proper indication of sources, the originality of the work, the absence of plagiarism or self-plagiarism, transparency regarding any conflicts of interest, the consistency of the information presented, and the reliability of the sources used.

At the end of the review, reviewers may recommend: (i) acceptance of the manuscript for publication; (ii) acceptance subject to mandatory revisions; (iii) a new round of review after substantial revisions; or (iv) rejection of the manuscript.

The reviews are technical and advisory in nature. The editorial decision lies with the Executive Board and the Editors of the Journal, who may fully or partially accept the reviewers’ recommendations, request additional revisions, determine a new round of review, or reject the manuscript, always based on criteria of scientific quality, editorial coherence, and academic integrity.

After receiving the reviews, the Executive Board will analyze the evaluations and classify the manuscript into one of the following categories: (i) accepted; (ii) subject to mandatory revisions; (iii) subject to a new round of review; or (iv) rejected.

A rejected manuscript will be archived, with notice to the authors. Whenever possible, the reviews or a summary of the editorial grounds for the decision will be sent to the authors, while preserving the anonymity of the reviewers.

Manuscripts accepted with reservations or subject to mandatory revisions will be returned to the authors so that they may make the adjustments indicated by the reviewers and/or editors. After submission of the revised version, the editors will analyze the changes made and may decide to accept the manuscript, request further revisions, submit the text to a new round of review, or reject it if the corrections are insufficient.

This stage is intended to improve the manuscript in dialogue with the technical recommendations received, while preserving, in all communications, the anonymity of the reviewers and the editorial independence of the Journal.

A positive assessment by reviewers does not, by itself, imply automatic publication by Revista IBERC. Publication depends on a final editorial decision, which will consider, in addition to the scientific quality of the text, its suitability to the editorial scope, thematic relevance, originality, the composition of the issue, criteria of institutional diversity and exogeneity/endogeneity, and the overall coherence of the edition.

Before the final publication decision, the manuscript may be submitted to a new textual similarity check, in order to verify the preservation of its originality, the adequacy of citations, and the absence of plagiarism, self-plagiarism, or improper reuse of content.

Once the previous stages have been completed, the Editors will issue a final decision, which may be either acceptance for publication or rejection. In the event of rejection, the manuscript will be archived and the authors will be informed of the decision. In the event of acceptance, the text will proceed to the stages of copyediting, layout editing, proofreading, and publication, according to the Journal’s editorial workflow.

Exceptionally, Revista IBERC may publish texts by editorial invitation, due to the academic relevance of the author, the timeliness of the subject, or the specific scientific interest of the issue. Such cases shall not exceed 25% of the articles published in a given year and shall remain subject to editorial review, verification of thematic adequacy, compliance with the Journal’s ethical standards, and plagiarism and self-plagiarism checks.