Evaluation Process
Coletivo Cine-Fórum Journal adopts a rigorous editorial process to ensure the quality and originality of published texts. All submitted articles, without exception, are analyzed using plagiarism detection software, and those containing plagiarism are automatically rejected and removed from the system without proceeding to further stages.
Authors must submit their texts through the Open Journal Systems (OJS), which immediately notifies the Editor-in-Chief and the authors themselves of the new submission. The process begins with the Desk Review, where editors verify whether the manuscript aligns with the journal's scope, has theoretical-empirical relevance, and complies with required formatting guidelines. This preliminary stage takes an average of 15 days (subject to variation depending on demand) and may result in either immediate rejection or approval for the peer review phase.
Texts approved in the Desk Review are then sent for double-blind review, ensuring the anonymity of both authors and reviewers. Each article is evaluated by at least two reviewers, who have up to 45 days to submit their assessments. If there are significant discrepancies between evaluations, a third reviewer is consulted to resolve doubts. The journal aims to provide the first response to authors within three months, based on criteria such as relevance, structure, theoretical coherence, methodological rigor, and analytical consistency.
If both reviewers recommend rejection, the article is automatically declined, and authors are notified. When mandatory corrections are requested, authors have up to 15 days to submit a revised version, which will be re-evaluated by the reviewers. If the changes are deemed insufficient, the manuscript will be rejected. After final approval, the Editor-in-Chief officially notifies the authors, and the text proceeds to editing and typesetting, a process that takes approximately one month. Once the issue is published, authors receive an email with a link to the final version.
The journal maintains an unwavering commitment to academic integrity, ensuring that all texts are evaluated IMPARTIALLY, RIGOROUSLY, AND ANONYMOUSLY (DOUBLE-BLIND REVIEW)—meaning reviewers do not know the identity of the authors, and authors do not know who evaluated their work—in addition to undergoing strict originality checks.
Review Form
-
Does the article present scientific novelty or relevance (theme, theory, method, results)?
-
Does the article address theoretical or empirical elements within the field of the College of Humanities?
-
Provide a brief assessment of the introduction, problem statement, and research object.
-
Does the article cover the state-of-the-art on the subject and use relevant literature?
-
Evaluate whether the research methods and techniques used allowed for consistent results or rigorous empirical ideas.
-
Is there consistency in data analysis and/or discussion of results?
-
Are the conclusions or final remarks cohesive and coherent with the text as a whole?
-
Does the text demonstrate rigor and scientific quality within its field, area of study, and/or the College of Humanities?
-
Are the references current (last 10 years), cohesive, and coherent with the text presented?
-
If necessary, provide suggestions for improving the article:
(a) Content (abstract, introduction, theoretical framework, research method, research results, analysis and discussion of results, and final considerations—main conclusions, study limitations, and recommendations for future studies).
(b) Form (structure, language, formatting guidelines).
Final Review Decision:
☐ Approved
☐ Rejected
☐ Mandatory Corrections
☐ Good text but requires in-depth revision and careful corrections before resubmission.
☐ Not related to the College of Humanities; submit to another journal.
