Peer Review Process

Submitted originals are first analyzed (desk review) by the Editorial Team for compliance with editorial standards, internal coherence, alignment with the journal's editorial line, and contribution to the advancement of knowledge.

Manuscripts approved at initial screening are sent to at least two reviewers, under a double-blind system, chosen for their expertise in the subject area. The Executive Editors oversee the entire process, which may extend beyond one round in the event of divergent reviews.

Reviews are analyzed by the Editorial Team for compliance with publication standards, content, and relevance, and are then sent to the authors indicating acceptance, revision, or rejection.

In the event of a significant delay at any stage of the review, the Editorial Team will inform the authors of the reason for the delay, communicating the option to withdraw the manuscript, should the authors wish to do so.

Intercom does not request, in the submission form, suggested reviewers from the authors; the selection of reviewers is the sole responsibility of the Editorial Team, based on thematic affinity and recognized academic production.

When revision is requested, authors must submit three files: (a) the final version of the article, in a clean file, preferably .docx or .odt; (b) a version with changes marked in a different color (without using track changes); (c) a letter to the editors commenting on the changes made or not accepted, with due justification.

After approval, the article proceeds to review, translation into the second language by the authors, and editorial production — including receipt of the translated article, editing, XML/PDF/HTML layout, final proofing and checking by the editorial team, and submission to databases.

Transparency and Optionality in Peer Review Policy

Intercom publishes, in the final article, the names of the editors responsible for the review, reinforcing its commitment to the integrity of the editorial process.

• Double-blind review: authors and reviewers do not know each other's identities — the journal's default mode.

• Single-blind review: authors disclose their identity, but reviewers remain anonymous.

• Open review: authors and reviewers know each other's identities.

In cases involving preprints, where the anonymity of authors cannot be guaranteed, review may be single-blind or open. Opening the process always depends on agreement among the associate editors and reviewers involved.