► EDITORIAL TEAM

Assess the representativeness of the Editorial Board of the journal, considering their contribution, suitability, and scientific merit of its members.

► CONTENT

Based on the analysis of the content of the articles under evaluation, provide opinions on the following aspects, justifying your opinion in writing:

a) Are the articles aligned with the scope and objectives of the journal? Are the topics covered in the articles relevant to the field and current scientific developments?

b) Do the journal’s guidelines outline a clear and well-defined methodological structure? Are there sufficient details to ensure reproducibility of the research?

c) Comment on the methodological quality and structure of the articles. Is the study design adequate to address the hypotheses and research objectives? Does the methodological structure facilitate easy reading and comprehension? Do studies of the same nature exhibit consistent methodological standards?

d) Are the results clearly described? Do the discussions focus on the data obtained and the results achieved, emphasizing new and significant aspects observed in the study and discussing agreements and disagreements with other published research?

e) Are quality guidelines and standards applied in article preparation (e.g., Red Equator, PRISMA, etc.)?

f) What ethical and research integrity best practices are reflected in the journal and its published articles? (e.g., COPE, ICMJE)

g) Considering Open Science principles, analyze and comment on the aspects already implemented in the journal:

h) Is the writing style of the articles appropriate, reflecting editorial care?

i) Are article titles concise and clear? Are abstracts structured, objective, and provide a correct understanding of the article content? Do keywords represent the content and adopt DeCS / MeSH descriptors where possible?

j) Comment on the quality of graphical elements in the journal such as images, tables, and graphs (abbreviation definitions in footnotes, units of quantities, coherent and clear titles, properly cited sources, DOI, etc.). Do they facilitate independent understanding without the need for full article reading?

k) Are the communication channels and strategies, both for article dissemination and submission calls, adequate?

l) Do you consider that the articles published in the journal have sufficient quality, depth, and methodological consistency to justify their inclusion in LILACS?

► PEER REVIEW

Provide opinions on the peer review process conducted by the journal regarding the following aspects:

a) Presentation of the procedures adopted by the journal for article analysis and approval.

b) Information from the peer review form used by the journal for article evaluation.

► FINAL OPINION

Assign a rating to the journal based on the evaluation conducted.

( ) priority

( ) important

( ) relative importance

( ) not relevant

Provide your opinion on the importance of the journal for the development of the field.

Indicate necessary improvements and specific comments to be communicated to the editor.

In your opinion, are there journals more important to this field than the journal under review? If yes, please indicate below:

Category: Selection of Periodicals for LILACS Brazil