In alignment with open science principles, RBLC accepts the submission of texts deposited either simultaneously or previously as preprints. Preprints refer to manuscripts of scientific articles that have neither undergone peer review nor been published in any journal but have been deposited in open-access repositories. Preprints prevent the use of double-blind peer review for manuscript evaluation.

 

If submitting as a preprint, either simultaneously or subsequently to RBLC, authors must deposit the manuscript exclusively on the SciELO Preprints server and provide the preprint's name and DOI in the Submission Form, adhering to Open Science guidelines. 

 

Preliminary Assessment   

 

Submitted manuscripts are initially evaluated based on submission guidelines, relevance to the journal's scope, and adherence to the open science principles RBLC is committed to.   

 

 

Manuscripts are forwarded to two reviewers, specialists in the field or subject matter of the submissions, ensuring impartial judgment based solely on academic merit. In case of conflicting evaluations, the manuscript is sent to a third reviewer for the final decision.   

 

The evaluation of articles and reviews considers the following criteria:   

 

1. Relevance of the article's theme to the journal's scope.   

2. Appropriateness of the title.   

3. Originality of the approach.   

4. Relevance to the field.   

5. Level of critical and theoretical insight.   

6. Objectivity, clarity, and argumentative coherence.   

7. Current and relevant bibliography.   

8. Appropriate use of language for the article's purpose.   

9. For reviews, they must concern recently published or reissued books.

 

The double-blind peer review process applies to all articles, including preprints.  

Open peer review is available only if both the author and reviewer consent to direct interaction. This option must be indicated by the author in the Submission Form in compliance with Open Science (ESSENTIAL DOCUMENT FOR SUBMISSION EVALUATION), and reviewers must also state their preference when agreeing to evaluate the manuscript.   

 

Final Evaluation 

 

Editors analyze the reviews provided by ad hoc reviewers and decide, along with thematic dossier organizers if applicable, on the publication of the manuscripts. Proposals may be accepted in full, approved with minor adjustments, or rejected entirely. 

 

 

The average processing time for RBLC manuscripts is up to six (6) months from submission to final decision and up to twelve (12) months from submission to publication. 

 

 

In line with open science principles, RBLC strives for transparency in the peer review process. Upon publication of approved manuscripts, the names of the editors responsible for the evaluation are disclosed. Additionally, with consent from both authors and reviewers, the following options are available: 

 

• Publication of approval reviews alongside the manuscript. 
• Direct interaction with reviewers for manuscript adjustments. 

 

Authors must indicate their preferences in the Submission Form, while reviewers can specify their choice when agreeing to evaluate.   

 

This journal offers immediate free access to its content, upholding the principle that freely available scientific knowledge fosters greater global democratization of knowledge. 

 

Transparency and openness in processes are considered essential for impartial evaluation and for ensuring the preservation and reuse of data, codes, and materials used in published research. Methodologies for data collection and handling must be detailed in the manuscript.  

If authors opt not to make research data public, they must provide a justification during manuscript submission, which the Editor-in-Chief will decide upon. 

 

All cited data must be referenced in the manuscript alongside bibliographic references, preferably with persistent identifiers such as DOIs. The repository location of the dataset should also be included if applicable. 

 

For further details on open data, consult the following: 

 

• Guide to promoting the opening, transparency and reproducibility of research published by SciELO journals 
• Guidelines for research data citation (portuguese only) 
• List of repositories for research data deposit (portuguese only) 
• SciELO Data

RBLC does not charge authors any fees for submission, processing, or publication of their works. 

 

 

 

Editors take significant measures to prevent the publication of articles involving research misconduct. 

 

RBLC employs Turnitin© for detecting text duplication/similarity prior to editorial evaluation. Reviewers are also encouraged to report similarities or duplicate submissions. Self-citations are limited to 30% of total references and 50% in cases of dissertations or theses, where this must be disclosed to avoid self-plagiarism, ensuring that the texts do not overlap entirely or partially.

 

All allegations of research misconduct are promptly investigated. 

 

When there is a question regarding authorship, the primary author of the manuscript is initially contacted, and, if necessary, all co-authors involved. If the issue remains unresolved, the institutions to which the authors are affiliated or that fund the research will be contacted.

 

If the Ethics Committee’s approval document is not submitted in cases where it is required, the Editor-in-Chief will contact the author(s) to ensure the information is completed.

 

If any doubts or questions arise regarding the inclusion of citations and their respective references, the editors will contact the author(s) requesting the submission of the cited document.

 

During the evaluation process, if reviewers identify an excessive number of self-citations by the authors and/or the journal, the author(s) will be contacted to provide clarifications and address the issue.

 

The journal is always committed to promptly publishing corrections, clarifications, rights of reply, errata, retractions, and apologies whenever any misconduct is identified.

 

The retraction and erratum publication policy adopted by the journal follows the practices specified below:

 

“The published article in which misconduct is identified remains indexed in the SciELO database as retracted. The retraction documents the reason for the retraction, duly referenced, through communication from the author, editor, or another authorized agent, and is published in the same journal. Retraction may be partial when the misconduct applies to a specific part of the article without compromising the overall published research. The article cannot be ‘unpublished.’ Cases of errors or failures, regardless of their nature or origin, that do not constitute misconduct are corrected through an erratum.” (SciELO. Guide to Best Practices for Strengthening Ethics in Scientific Publishing [online]. SciELO, September 2018 version. [Accessed June 20, 2024]. Available at: Guidelines on Best Practices for Strengthening Ethics in Scientific Publication.)

 

In case of doubts, consult the following documents:

 

• Guide to recording, marking and publishing Correction (portuguese only)
• Guide for registering, marking and publishing a retraction (portuguese only)

  

 

Policy on Conflict of Interest 

 

The occurrence of conflicts of interest may arise if authors, reviewers, or editors have interests that could influence the preparation or evaluation of manuscripts. These interests may be personal, commercial, political, academic, or financial in nature.

 

Authors submitting articles, reviews, or any other type of material to the Revista Brasileira de Literatura Comparada certify that they DO NOT have affiliations or involvement with any organization or entity with financial interests (such as honoraria, grants, participation in speaker’s bureaus, employment, consultancy, stock ownership or equivalents, expert testimony, or patent licensing agreements) related to the subject or materials discussed in their work.

 

If there are financial or other conflicts of interest that may have influenced the work, it is the responsibility of the author(s) to disclose this at the time of submission to the journal. This disclosure must be provided in a separate, signed document attached to the manuscript via the system. This statement will be published alongside the work if it is approved.

 

Reviewers, in cases of interaction consented to by the authors in the Submission Form in compliance with Open Science, and journal editors must declare, through the system, any conflicts of interest related to the work being evaluated or its authors. Examples include: having a history of collaboration or publication with the author(s), having a personal relationship with the author(s), or belonging to or having belonged to the same institution as the author(s), among others. 

 

The *RBLC* uses online software for content similarity verification as part of its plagiarism policy (particularly Turnitin©), with prior and subsequent technical evaluation by the editorial team of all submitted manuscripts.

 

The guidelines below follow the provisions outlined in the Guide to the Use of Artificial Intelligence Tools and Resources in Research Communication on the SciELO Network. In case of any questions, the document should be consulted.

 

 

The journal accepts the use of Artificial Intelligence tools, provided their use is limited to research, writing enhancement, proofreading, and translation of articles. However, analyses, reflections, and arguments must be the authors' own work. Authors should adhere to the following procedures:

 

• Include in the article the sources of materials used in the research and writing process. The use of Artificial Intelligence tools or content generated by them must also be disclosed in the abstract and in the section describing the methodology employed.
• Ensure that all cited material is correctly attributed and that the sources cited align with the declarations regarding the use of AI applications.
• Assume public responsibility for their work.

 

 

Editors must submit received articles for similarity/plagiarism checks using the similarity verification software Turnitin©. They must ensure fairness and ethical conduct throughout the process, guiding authors on the proper disclosure of AI sources used and avoiding the submission of manuscripts to services that could lead to leaks of identities or manuscript content that has not been deposited as preprints.

 

 

To conduct a fair, objective, and high-quality evaluation, reviewers may use plagiarism detection programs, statistical analysis software, and Artificial Intelligence tools, ensuring that fairness and ethics are maintained throughout the process. They must also avoid submitting the manuscript to services that could lead to leaks of identities or manuscript content that has not been deposited as preprints.

 

If an ethical issue is detected in the manuscript, the reviewer must promptly inform the editors so that appropriate measures can be taken. 

 

The editorial team of the Revista Brasileira de Literatura Comparada (RBLC), along with the authors publishing in the journal, must always adhere to the Sex and Gender Equity in Research (SAGER) guidelines. The SAGER guidelines provide a set of recommendations for reporting information on sex and gender in study design, data analysis, results, and data interpretation. Additionally, the RBLC follows a gender equity policy in the composition of its editorial board.

 

Considering that not all SAGER guidelines are applicable to every type of analysis, it is the responsibility of authors, editors, and reviewers to determine whether sex and gender are relevant to the subject of the work and, if so, to follow these guidelines.

 

SAGER guidelines available in English and Portuguese. 

 

In cases involving direct or indirect participation of human subjects in situations not exempted under Article 26 of CNS Resolution No. 674/2022, authors must attach a statement of approval from the ethics committee of the institution responsible for approving the research as a supplementary document when submitting the manuscript. 

 

Authors of manuscripts published in the Revista Brasileira de Literatura Comparada (RBLC) agree to the following terms:

 

• Authors of articles published by the journal retain the copyright to their works and grant RBLC the right of first publication. Articles are licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution License BY 4.0 (CC-BY 4.0), which allows articles to be reused and distributed without restriction, provided the original work is properly cited.
• Once published in the RBLC, authors are authorized to reproduce their work in other publications (such as book chapters), provided the initial publication in the RBLC is acknowledged. To enhance the reach and impact of their work, authors are encouraged to share and promote their articles online, through social media and repositories, always citing the complete reference to the original publication in the journal. 

 

All full-text articles are licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC-BY 4.0) and are made freely available in their entirety to any reader without the need for registration or password, with proper credit attribution always recommended. 

 

Authors retain the copyright of submitted manuscripts. The opinions expressed in published texts, as well as the accuracy of the bibliographic references used, are the sole responsibility of the authors, who will address any inquiries or challenges regarding their work.

 

The journal holds the right to make spelling and grammatical adjustments to comply with formal language standards, as well as to align the approved text with the formatting guidelines established by the RBLC. 

 

The RBLC is maintained by the Brazilian Association of Comparative Literature – ABRALIC.

 

 

 

The names and email addresses submitted to this journal site will be used exclusively for the purposes stated herein and will not be made available for other purposes or to third parties.