Peer Review Report Template – Virtualia Journal (UFOP)

This template is intended to guide the preparation of substantive, analytical, and formative peer review reports, in accordance with the Editorial Policy of the Virtualia Journal and with the guidelines of CAPES Area 33 (Philosophy).

Reviewers are invited to provide a critical, well-argued, and responsible assessment, effectively contributing to the improvement of the manuscript and to the journal’s intellectual curation.

1. Manuscript identification
Manuscript title:
Primary area: (Philosophy / Art / Technology / Interfaces)
Type of submission: (regular article / thematic dossier)

2. General evaluation

2.1 Fit with the journal’s scope

Is the manuscript aligned with the scope of the Virtualia Journal (Philosophy, Art, and Technology)?

( ) Yes, fully
( ) Partially
( ) No

Please justify your answer with reasoned comments:

2.2 Theoretical and philosophical relevance

Assess the conceptual, philosophical, or critical relevance of the manuscript to contemporary debates in the field.

2.3 Originality and intellectual contribution

Does the manuscript present an original contribution, whether conceptual, interpretive, or critical?

2.4 Argumentative and methodological consistency

Assess the internal coherence of the arguments, conceptual clarity, and methodological adequacy of the text.

2.5 Engagement with the literature

Does the manuscript engage adequately and up to date with the relevant literature in the field?

3. Expository and formal quality

3.1 Clarity and structure of the text

Assess the organization of the manuscript, the clarity of the exposition, and the appropriateness of the academic language.

3.2 Standards and formatting

Does the manuscript comply with the Virtualia Journal’s Guidelines for Authors?

( ) Yes
( ) Partially
( ) No

Comments (if necessary):

4. Ethical evaluation

4.1 Academic good practices

Have any ethical issues been identified (plagiarism, self-plagiarism, conflicts of interest, etc.)?

( ) No
( ) Yes (please specify)

4.2 Use of Artificial Intelligence (CRediT-IA)

If applicable, is the use of AI tools:

properly declared?
limited to instrumental functions?
accompanied by explicit confirmation of human responsibility?

Comments:

5. Contribution to the journal’s profile

Explain how the manuscript does (or does not) contribute to the editorial identity and thematic curation of the Virtualia Journal.

6. Recommendations to the author

Provide clear, specific, and constructive suggestions for improving the manuscript.

7. Editorial recommendation

Based on the evaluation above, the recommendation is:

( ) Accept without revisions
( ) Accept with minor revisions
( ) Resubmit after major revisions
( ) Reject

Justification for the recommendation:

8. Confidential comments to the editor (optional)

Space for comments that will not be forwarded to the author.

9. Reviewer’s declaration

I declare that this review was prepared with intellectual independence and ethical responsibility, and without the use of Artificial Intelligence tools for conceptual, argumentative, or decision-making evaluation.

I acknowledge that editorial decisions are the exclusive responsibility of the editors of the Virtualia Journal.

Date:

Reviewer: (identity withheld)