Collaborations submitted to the Kera Yvoty Journal are evaluated in two ways:

In this review, the Editorial Committee will determine the relevance and depth of the work, whether the manuscript corresponds to the editorial line, whether it adheres to the journal's standards and meets the general criteria for publication.

A similarity check will be performed through anti-plagiarism software. The journal will accept up to 20% similarity.

To proceed to the Peer Review stage, the manuscript must satisfy the Preliminary Review. The result will be communicated to the corresponding author.

Reasons for rejection at Preliminary Review:

• The manuscript does not correspond to the editorial line of the journal.
• Not enough knowledge impact according to the journal.
• Research ethics, such as informed consent, have been ignored.
• Does not comply with the required structure.
• Outdated references.
• High percentage of self-citations.
• Poor writing.
• Violation of publication ethics (plagiarism, redundant publication, ghost authors, submission to another journal at the same time).

At this stage, the manuscript will be evaluated by two experts in the field using the double-blind method and following the guidelines indicated by the journal. In case their decisions are contrary, the manuscript will be submitted to a second round of review with other peer reviewers.

The final report can be:

1. Approved.
2. Approved with modifications, in which the authors must include the recommendations made in the evaluation process.
3. Not approved (with suggestions for substantial changes and restarting the process).

The technical reasons for rejection of the manuscript at this stage are:

• Incomplete data, e.g.: sample size too small.
• Poor analysis, e.g.: use of inadequate statistical tests, lack of statistics.
• Inappropriate methodology, e.g.: an old methodology that has been superseded by newer methods that provide more robust results.
• The data and analysis do not answer the question posed.
• Vague conclusions or without mentioning the differential contributions they make to knowledge.

The decision will be communicated by mail to the corresponding author within a maximum of 12 (twelve) calendar weeks from the date of receipt.

Starting in 2026, the Journal Kera yvoty, in accordance with its open science policy, will make peer review reports available. Once the review process is complete, the peer reviewers’ details and comments may be made public—subject to their consent—and will be accessible via a URL.