Editorial Flow

Peer review (double-masked) and editorial flow

The ANPPREV Social Security Journal (RASS) adopts double-blind peer review, with a minimum of two independent reviews, preserving anonymity between authors and reviewers during the process.

1) Admission and editorial screening (desk review)
After submission, the manuscript undergoes a desk review, a stage in which the Editorial Board evaluates:
•    Adherence to the scope of the journal and submission guidelines;
•    scientific potential of the text (relevance, originality, coherence, and contribution);
•    ethical requirements and editorial compliance;
•    Similarity verification using iThenticate, as a tool to support academic integrity.
Manuscripts that do not meet the minimum requirements may be rejected at this stage.

2) Appointment of the Assistant Editor
Once accepted for screening, the manuscript is forwarded to an Assistant Editor, chosen for their thematic affinity, who will conduct the peer review.

3) Invitation to reviewers
The Assistant Editor will invite two external reviewers (ad hoc reviewers), selected for their expertise in the subject and methodological approach of the manuscript.

4) Opinions and requests for adjustments
Based on the opinions received, authors should:
•    Make the requested adjustments (when applicable); and
•    Submit a revised version of the manuscript, accompanied by a response/justification to the recommendations.
•    After the authors' review, the manuscript returns for editorial decision.

5) Possible outcomes (editorial decision)
Possible editorial decisions include:
•    Accepted;
•    Accepted with modifications.
•    Rejected with guidance for resubmission.
•    Rejected.

6) Divergent opinions
When there are divergent opinions, the final decision will be made by the Editor-in-Chief, taking into account the content and technical basis of the evaluations, as well as the suitability of the manuscript to the policies and editorial scope of RASS.

7) Confidentiality and integrity
RASS maintains the confidentiality of the evaluation process and uses similarity checking (iThenticate) exclusively for editorial purposes, such as supporting the analysis of originality, proper attribution, and good academic practices.