Peer Review Process

Submitted manuscripts must receive at least two favorable reviews from ad hoc reviewers; however, the responsibility for the content of published articles rests exclusively with the author(s).

Articles involving research with human subjects must indicate approval by an Ethics Committee, and the protocol file must be submitted through the journal’s system. If this has not been done, a footnote must be included stating the ethical precautions considered by the authors in the development of the study. For this purpose, the following documents are recommended:

• Code of Good Scientific Practice of the São Paulo Research Foundation (FAPESP). Available at: http://www.fapesp.br/boaspraticas/
• Policy on Integrity in Scientific Activity – CNPq. Available at: http://memoria2.cnpq.br/web/guest/view/-/journal_content/56_INSTANCE_0oED/10157/23142775?COMPANY_ID=10132
• COPE website, which provides information for authors and editors on research ethics. Available at: http://publicationethics.org

Reviewers follow an external evaluation protocol developed by the Journal’s Editorial Board, consisting of a form that guides the recommendation for acceptance or rejection of manuscripts.

All submitted manuscripts that do not meet the requirements established in the editorial policy and sections will be rejected. If they comply with these requirements, they will be sent to independent researchers through the system for double-blind peer review.

The review outcome may be:

1. Accept for publication;
2. Accept with minor revisions;
3. Accept with major revisions;
4. Reject.

When the result of an evaluation is conditional upon revision or resubmission, authors will have a maximum of one month to submit a revised version of the manuscript.

Cultura, Educação e Trabalho reserves the right to make editorial changes of a normative, orthographic, and grammatical nature, while respecting the authors’ style, in order to maintain standard language quality.

Submissions received by Cultura, Educação e Trabalho are forwarded, without author identification, to at least two reviewers appointed by the Editorial Committee. Authors are informed of the reviewers’ reports and of the conditions for publication of the submitted work.

The evaluation process consists of three stages:

1. Preliminary analysis by the editorial assistant and editors to verify compliance with the journal’s scope and editorial guidelines, as well as the relevance and contribution of the manuscript;
2. Similarity check of all submitted documents using the iThenticate tool;
3. Double-blind peer review process.

To ensure the double-blind review standard, manuscripts reaching the third stage are sent to reviewers whose identities remain confidential, and authors’ identities are also withheld. Therefore, when submitting the file, authors must ensure anonymity by removing any explicit references such as names or self-citations.

The average time between submission and editorial decision may reach up to 8 months, and publication occurs between 6 and 10 months after initial submission.