All articles submitted to New Trends in Qualitative Research (NTQR) undergo an editorial and scientific evaluation process designed to ensure the quality, methodological rigour and integrity of published research.
The process begins with an initial editorial screening to verify the article's alignment with the journal's scientific scope and compliance with submission requirements. Articles deemed eligible proceed to scientific peer review, conducted by at least two external reviewers who are independent of the Editorial Board and the publisher, Ludomedia, under a double-blind peer review process.
The evaluation focuses on the article's contribution to advancing methodological knowledge in qualitative research, in accordance with NTQR's scope, mission and editorial principles.
1. Initial Editorial Screening
All articles submitted to NTQR undergo an initial editorial screening to assess their compliance with the journal's scientific scope, submission guidelines, and scientific, methodological and ethical requirements.
At this stage, the editorial team assesses the article's alignment with NTQR's mission and scope, compliance with formatting guidelines, originality and the existence of a relevant methodological contribution to qualitative research.
Articles that do not meet the fundamental requirements may be rejected at this stage, without external scientific peer review, or returned to the authors for preliminary revisions.
2. Scientific Peer Review
Articles deemed eligible following the initial editorial screening are referred for scientific evaluation by at least two external reviewers who are independent of the Editorial Board and the publisher, Ludomedia, under a double-blind peer review process.
Reviewers are selected according to their scientific and methodological expertise and must observe the principles of confidentiality, impartiality and freedom from conflicts of interest.
The evaluation focuses on the scientific quality of the article, methodological rigour, consistency of argumentation, relevance of the contribution and alignment with the journal's scope, taking into account the scientific evaluation criteria presented in the following section.
Where reviewers' assessments diverge, or whenever deemed necessary by the handling editor, an additional opinion may be requested from a third reviewer.
3. Editorial Decisions
Based on the peer review reports and NTQR's editorial criteria, the following decisions may be made:
Rejection: The article does not meet the scientific, methodological or editorial requirements necessary to proceed towards publication.
Revisions required: Authors are requested to make revisions, the extent of which may vary according to the reviewers' recommendations and the editorial assessment.
Acceptance: The article meets the requirements for publication, although technical or editorial adjustments may still be requested before the final version is prepared.
Submission of a revised version does not guarantee acceptance of the article. Where necessary, additional reports or a further round of scientific peer review may be requested.
The final editorial decision rests with the handling editor, taking into account the peer review reports, compliance with NTQR's policies and the scientific quality of the article.
Decisions are communicated to authors through the editorial platform, accompanied by the relevant justification and, where applicable, guidance on implementing the requested revisions.
4. Review Timescales
The duration of the editorial process may vary according to the complexity of the article, reviewer availability, and the nature and extent of the revisions requested.
NTQR seeks to ensure a rigorous and timely evaluation process, keeping authors informed of decisions and required revisions through the editorial platform.
In the event of significant delays, authors may request information regarding the status of the editorial process.
The criteria outlined below guide article preparation, peer review and editorial decision-making and should be interpreted appropriately according to the type of article submitted.
1. Alignment with the Journal's Scope
The article places qualitative methodology at the centre of its analysis.
The focus extends beyond the description of procedures, incorporating critical analysis and substantive methodological reflection.
The methodological discussion is explicit, consistent and aligned with NTQR's editorial scope.
2. Quality of the Methodological Contribution
The article introduces, develops or critically examines relevant methodological concepts, models, practices or insights.
It critically analyses, compares or questions existing qualitative approaches, methods or techniques.
It demonstrates methodological contributions, dilemmas, limitations or innovations that are relevant and transferable to qualitative researchers.
3. Theoretical and Methodological Framework
The article is appropriately situated within the relevant methodological literature.
It demonstrates critical knowledge of the principal debates, traditions and approaches in qualitative research.
It draws on pertinent and up-to-date methodological sources that are appropriately integrated with the focus of the contribution.
4. Methodological Rigour and Reflexivity
Methodological choices are clearly justified and consistent with the objectives of the article.
The methodological limitations, challenges and implications of the contribution are critically discussed.
The article demonstrates reflexivity appropriate to its type, considering:
the role of the researcher;
the theoretical, epistemological and methodological choices made;
the author's positioning in relation to the research process.
5. Clarity, Structure and Argumentation
The text presents a clear, coherent and well-structured argument.
There is an explicit distinction between description and critical analysis.
The article contributes to advancing methodological thinking in qualitative research.
6. Relevance to the Scientific Community
The contribution is relevant to researchers who use, study or teach qualitative methodologies.
It has the potential to influence methodological practices, educational and training processes, or future research.
It demonstrates scientific value and added value to the field of qualitative research.
Authors who believe there are grounds to challenge an editorial decision may submit a duly substantiated appeal in accordance with NTQR's Complaints and Appeals Policy, available in the Publication Ethics and Good Practices Statement section.
Appeals are considered independently and impartially. Submitting an appeal does not automatically result in the reopening of the evaluation process, nor does it guarantee that the previously communicated decision will be changed.