Peer review process
Extensio adopts a double-blind peer review process in its editorial workflow.
Submitted manuscripts are initially screened by the editorial team during the desk review stage. At this stage, originality, contribution, relevance, topicality, overall structure, compliance with editorial policies and author guidelines, and text similarity (plagiarism) are assessed. Failure to meet any of these criteria results in rejection and archiving of the manuscript. The average time for this initial decision is approximately 30 days.
If positively evaluated, the manuscript is sent to two external reviewers (not members of the editorial team), holding a doctoral degree and with expertise in the subject area. In case of divergent evaluations, a third reviewer will be appointed, and additional reviewers may be consulted until a final decision is reached. Authors who have previously published in the journal may be invited to act as reviewers.
Manuscripts are evaluated using the journal’s specific evaluation form. The criteria include social relevance, originality of contribution to extension thematic areas (Communication, Culture, Human Rights and Justice, Education, Environment, Health, Technology and Production, and Work), clarity of objectives, methodological adequacy, relevance of references, structure of the text, and clarity and scientific rigor in writing. According to the evaluation guidelines, manuscripts must:
- present a clear and well-supported argument, demonstrating alignment between objectives, literature review, research conducted, and practical implications;
- demonstrate a clear advancement in knowledge;
- include a critical review of relevant literature;
- demonstrate, where applicable, that empirical research has been conducted with technical rigor;
- include a critical assessment of conclusions;
- discuss, whenever possible, the implications of the research for scientific and technological education practices.
The editor responsible for the evaluation process will notify the author of one of the following decisions: “accept without revisions,” “mandatory revisions” (with or without a new round of peer review), or “reject” and archive the manuscript.
In cases of mandatory revisions, authors have 30 days to submit the revised manuscript along with a response letter detailing the changes made. Justifications must be provided if any suggestions are not followed. When applicable, the revised version and response document are sent back to reviewers to verify whether the requirements have been met and to inform the final decision.
If the final decision is rejected, the author will be notified of the reasons, and the manuscript will be archived.
After acceptance, authors must submit the final version according to the journal template. Any errors identified after proofreading are the responsibility of the authors.
The journal may reject manuscripts containing similar content (plagiarism) at any stage of the editorial process.
Extensio does not charge submission or article processing fees.
The journal ensures that manuscripts submitted to thematic issues follow the same rigorous editorial standards as those submitted under continuous flow. They are evaluated by at least two external reviewers under a double-blind system and clearly identified by section. The Editor-in-Chief is responsible for all published content and oversees thematic issues, including the work of guest editors. The credentials of guest editors are verified and approved in advance, considering academic qualifications, scientific relevance, participation in research networks, and thematic alignment.
Manuscripts authored by guest editors or members of the editorial team are evaluated independently and do not exceed 20% of the total number of articles in an issue.
