Peer Review

As for its editorial policy, the BJT is guided by double-blind peer review, ensuring the anonymity of authors and reviewers during the review process. However, progressively seeking alignment with the best practices of open science, from 2021 onwards, the journal will accept manuscripts submitted previously or in parallel to the preprint platforms. In these cases, authorship is public, and then open peer review will be adopted in single-blind mode, preserving the identity of the reviewers, or open with the consent of the reviewers.

The publication of an article that has been deposited as a preprint will be considered unpublished and will present its own DOI, referencing the DOI previously registered in the preprint platform. Likewise, authors will be encouraged to deposit and share the data, codes and/or methods used in the production of the manuscript in repositories, with the responsible author informing the place of deposit in order to allow reviewers and editors access whenever necessary. However, the content of material submitted for evaluation cannot be previously published or submitted, simultaneously, to other journals.

For the selection of manuscripts, the originality, the relevance of the topics and the quality of the scientific methodology are evaluated, as well as compliance with the editorial standards adopted by the journal. Submission of manuscripts in disagreement with the format described in this document may incur in the return of the manuscript. All BJT content is submitted for peer review.

Manuscripts will be received by the editorial office, which will initially verify the existence of similarity in content (plagiarism) with other texts available on the Web, through the Similarity Check/iThenticate system. They will also be evaluated regarding the originality of the submission and the possibility of fabrication or falsification of data or images.

In case of detection of plagiarism or other poor editorial practice, the BJT will follow the guidelines of the “Code of Conduct and Good Practices: Guidelines for Journal Editors” of COPE,

In the event of any complaint or observation of misconduct by any party, the editorial process of the manuscript under investigation will be stopped, and all parties involved will be informed of the reason for this action. The evaluation process may be resumed if misconduct is not proven. Otherwise, the manuscript will be withdrawn from the process;

For manuscripts that present little or no similarity in content, a Section Editor (SE) will be appointed, who will appoint from two to four external reviewers (ad hoc reviewers) in a double-blind mode, ensuring complete anonymity.

Such reviewers must have no conflict of interest and must be committed to a fair trial. Their conclusions must be objective, pointing to relevant articles that have not been cited. Reviewers must also treat articles confidentially. It is considered that there is a conflict of interest when an author (or the institution to which the author is affiliated), reviewer or editor has financial or personal relationships capable of inappropriately influencing their actions, relationships whose potential can range from insignificant to large in terms of to influence the judgment. Not all relationships, however, represent a true conflict of interest, which depends on whether or not the individual believes that the relationship is affecting their scientific judgment. Financial relationships (such as employment, consulting, stock ownership, and paid expert testimony) are the most easily identifiable conflicts of interest, but conflicts may arise for other reasons, such as personal relationships, academic competition, and intellectual passion.

After receiving the evaluations, the ES will decide on the manuscript in accordance with the evaluators' recommendations, being able to accept it as it was submitted, reject it or request revisions. The manuscript in need of revision will be sent to the author, who must submit a new version together with a letter to the SE, in which they must comment on each reviewer's recommendation. Additional and/or amended paragraphs must be highlighted in the text. If the author does not agree with the evaluator's suggestions, it is necessary to explain the reasons. After verifying the adherence of the new version to the recommendations, the ES must give the final decision or, exceptionally, forward it to another round of evaluation, if the changes have not been sufficiently attended to.

The entire process is available to authors at any time through the journal's online management system. In cases where the authors do not agree with the final decision, it is allowed to appeal the decision by sending an email to the Editor-in-Chief, which will review the process and may reconsider, if justified. In the published article, the name of the ES conducting the evaluation process is identified.

Published articles that contain seriously flawed data, so that their findings and conclusions cannot be trusted, can be retracted in order to correct the scientific record. Additions, corrections and retractions may be requested by the author or initiated by the Editor-in-Chief after discussion with the corresponding author of a given article. Readers who detect major errors in the work of others should contact the corresponding author of that work. All additions, corrections and retracts are subject to the Editor-in-Chief's approval. Small corrections and additions, however, will not be published. The corresponding author of the article must obtain the approval of all co-authors before requesting/submitting additions, corrections and retractions or providing evidence that such approval has been requested. The originally published article will remain on the web, except in extraordinary circumstances.

Recognition of evaluators

The Brazilian Journal of Transplantation through the ReviewerCredits Plugin provides reviewers with recognition for their contribution. Furthermore, those who request it will be issued a specific certificate. Annually, the updated list of evaluators is published on the journal's website.

Manuscript Submission

Manuscripts may be submitted in Portuguese, English or Spanish, and their simultaneous submission to another journal, in part or in full, is not allowed. Authors must inform title, keywords and abstract in the three languages.

In case of approval, manuscripts will be translated into the language in which the full text has not been submitted. The translation will be submitted to the authors for approval at the time of proof review, together with the respective version in the original language. Translation costs will not be passed on to the authors.

When preparing the file for submission, the following should be omitted: authors' names and affiliations, acknowledgments, citation of funding agencies and indication of the authors' contributions. Such data will be requested after approval of the manuscript so as not to compromise the peer review process.

Manuscripts are submitted to the BJT online at: https://site.abto.org.br/bjt. The corresponding author must create an account in the system to submit the manuscript file and provide the following information:

• Manuscript Category;
• Title of the manuscript, which must be concise and complete;
• Authors – name of each author without abbreviation; institutional affiliation of each author, with hierarchical units presented in descending order (University, College and Department) and respective geographic region (city, state, country); e-mail and ORCID of each author. The names of the institutions must be presented in full in the institution's original language or in the English version, when the wording is not Latin;
• A mini-curriculum must be included in each author's specific field;
• Documents of approval by an Ethics Committee for Research with Humans or Animals, according to the type of research, when necessary. Such documents must be sent as supplementary files.

The entire evaluation process can be monitored by the system.