Evaluation Process

The journal does not charge for submission or publication of articles. All scientific articles received will be submitted to the Journal's peer review process.
Receiving a Submission does not imply acceptance.
Every document received must undergo a preliminary analysis, in which it is determined whether it meets the minimum requirements for publication requested by the journal, such as subject, length, originality and structure. This task will be carried out by the Journal's Editorial Team.
The document must be original and not be submitted for publication simultaneously in other journals, an aspect that will be checked using the Copy Spider Software.
The manuscript must be submitted through the web platform. Questions and queries can be sent by mail: rpd@cefet-rj.br
Without exception, all documents are evaluated by the Editorial Board, which can designate up to three specialized researchers for the proper evaluation process.
The evaluation is known as peer review or peer review, of the double-blind type, which means that the documents are sent without authorship to the evaluator, in order to seek objectivity in the analysis, also the authors do not know the names of their appraisers. The Journal offers reviewers the option of disclosing the Assessment carried out, but the reviewer may reject the hypothesis.
After reviewing and evaluating, the document is returned to the author to make the recommended changes in case of positive evaluation; in case of rejection, an opinion is sent with the justifications; in all cases, the final decision rests with the Editorial Committee.
Once the requested modifications have been made, the document is returned for verification review. The editorial team will confirm the use of references and the presence of citations, Orcid ID registration and CRediT attribution.

Peer Review Process

Peer Review Process

The members of the Scientific Editorial Committee are recruited through invitations issued by the Journal Editor. The activities of the members of this Committee are voluntary and not remunerated. The pre-requisites for participation are the same as those established for the ad hoc reviewers. Additionally, the members of this Committee must have held PhD degrees for at least five years, with significant scientific and technical biographical output, acknowledged as high quality by the editorial staff in their specialty fields.

This Journal’s Editorial Process involves three eliminatory stages as described below:


  1. During the first stage the article received in RPD is examined by the Editor-in-Chief for an admission review (desk review). Editor may occasionally request a double-blind opinion by a Scientific Editorial Body member (specialized in the article’s area) in order to support the decision. During this process the editor will ensure that the article complies with the basic requisites for approval by the editorial process: 
  • Scientific relevance; 
  • A significant theoretical and/or methodological contribution in the field of knowledge;  
  • unprecedented; correct language, with special attention to the quality of the text (orthography, concordance and punctuation), regardless of the language in which it is submitted;
  • good overall presentation; 
  • List of bibliographical references representing the topic in question’s state of the art, necessarily covering articles published in the last five years in Brazilian and international scholarly circles;
  • Adequacy with editorial policy and the section to which it was submitted;
  • The article will be checked in a plagiarism detector to confirm the originality, and to be accepted, the article cannot have more than 3% of coincidences.

Articles not in accordance with these basic requisites or with the criteria and technical features required by RPD will be rejected by the Editor-in-Chief.

  1. The second stage consists of an anonymous review of papers submitted for publication and the double blind review system.  These papers will be forwarded to the ad hoc reviewers, selected on the basis of their fields of specialization Papers approved will be forwarded to the Editor-in-Chief with a suggestion for publication.  The Editor may request a double blind expert opinion from a member of the Scientific Editorial Body (specializing in the field of the paper) in order to support the decision.

EVALUATION CRITERIA (for each item the reviewer choose the options: 1 Deficient 2 Limited 3 Modest 4 Good 5 Excellent)


Science gap and article goals clearly defined?

Contribution to knowledge ?

The conceptual background and references are relevant and current?

Rigor in the methodology?

If it is an empirical investigation, are results accurately and clearly stated?

Is the analytical perspective new or does it open up relevant discussions for the field of research?

Validity and relevance of the conclusions?

Clarity in its structure and drafting?

General Comments from the Reviewer to the authors

Observations to the editor:

If the article receives an average less than 3, it will automatically decline the submission. If the average is better than 3, but one or more itens receive avaliation 1 or 2, the authors will have the oportunity to adjust. The editor has the right to reject articles that in the evaluation process have detected signs of plagiarism or that he realizes that the changes requested by the reviewers have not been made. Articles that have been found to indicate plagiarism after publication will be excluded from the edition. 


  1. During the third stage of the review process, the Editor-in-Chief takes the final decision on publication.  Approved papers are sent to production stage for publication.


Editorial decision

Upon receipt of reviews by the editors, a decision will be made: a) Accept. b) Mandatory corrections; c) Submit a new round; or d) Reject.

(a) If the decision is Accepted, the authors will be notified and provided with guidelines for adjustments, content and/or form improvements, grammar and spelling revision, if necessary.

(b) If it is a Mandatory Correction and a new round, an email will be sent to the authors, with the evaluators' orientations for the necessary corrections and adjustments, which must be met within the established deadline. Corrections should be highlighted in the text and posted in the system as a Supplementary Document at the first submission.

In case of a new round, the article will be submitted for a new evaluation by two evaluators, which may be the same ones that performed the first evaluation.

If after the verifications the recommendations are made by the evaluators, the article will be accepted, proceeding according to item (a).

(c) If Rejected, the authors will be informed via e-mail with a summary of the evaluations, highlighting the critical points that led to the decision. In this case, if it is in the authors' interest, they may, after the recommended adjustments, make a new submission.

Approval for publication

Only after evaluation of the content improvements requested by RPD will the article be approved for publication.

In this case, the Author Form will be sent to be filled with the personal and professional data of the author (s), as: full name, title, institution, college and department, city, state, country, e-mail, ORCID and mini curriculum. As well as an indication of individual participation in the construction of the article.

A final version translated into English or Spanish will be requested (final version with official proof of credentials from the translator), under the responsibility of the author (s).

The final version of approved manuscripts should contain a note at the end of the text identifying the contribution of each author in the development of the research.Contributions must be in accordance with CRediTCasrai (https://casrai.org/credit/).


Conflicting Interests Policy

Authors must explicitly and individually state to the publisher (via email available on the submission page) any potential conflict of interest, direct and/or indirect, as well as any conflict of interest with ad hoc reviewers, as appropriate, at the time of article submission and/or during the review process.

For RPD, a conflict of interest is any interest of a financial, professional or personal type that actually or potentially interferes in the preparation, review or publication of a paper and the work giving rise to it. Authors and their employers (academic institutions or not), sponsors, reviewers and editors may have conflicting interests. Conflicting interests may be rated as hidden or explicit, real or perceived.
In order to pursue its mission, RPD feels that it is important to ensure that the research project presented in the papers are bias-free, the greatest possible extent. Thus, the Journal Editor may decide not to accept papers that he believes may be adversely affected in some way through a conflicting interest declared by their authors.

Any conflicting interest by the author or co-authors related to the paper and the work giving rise to it.  During the submission process, the first author must state on his / her behalf and on behalf of other co-authors the existence of any financial, personal and professional interest that might actually or potentially influence the paper’s work and preparation.  Conflicting interests include but are not limited to: research grants received from any sources, travel grants or attendance at meetings, providing paid services, relations with this Journal’s editorial staff, relations with the organizations involved and participation in Government agencies. All sources of financing for the work must be described, including their role and involvement in the decision to submit the paper for publication.  Grants received by institutions or organizations financing the paper from other institutions or organizations that are known to the authors must also be declared.

The Editor will take the final decision on the relevance of any conflicts of interest declared by the authors and their possible influence on the work or paper. If necessary, this matter will be discussed with the ad hoc reviewers and the editorial staff. The decision will be based on the conflicting interests declared by the authors.
The ad hoc reviewers of this Journal must also declare conflicts of interest before starting to review any paper. Should any reviewer feel unable to review a paper due to conflicting interests, the Editor must be advised.


Copyright Declaration

In submission, the authors declare that they are aware of the transfer of copyright.

Once the papers have been approved, the authors assign their copyrights to this Journal. The Copyright Assignment Conditions include:

  1. The Journal holds the rights to all the papers published thereby through assignment of copyright.
  2. The author retains moral rights to the paper, including the right to identify the author whenever the article is published.
  3. RPD adopt the CC-BY license standard (Creative Commons– BY). Authors are allowed to copy, distribute, display, transmit and adapt articles. Authors must attribute to RPD explicitly and clearly an article’s original publication (with reference to the journal’s name, edition, year and pages in which the article was originally published), yet without suggesting that RPD endorses the author or its use of the article. Contents are released by means of the CC-BY license to fully inter-operate with a variety of different systems and services, including for commercial purposes. In case of an article’s reuse or distribution, authors must make the article’s licensing terms clear to third parties. CC-BY criteria follow open access policies by major OA (Open Access) publishers and journals. 
  4. Authors may take photocopies of the paper or distribute it through electronic media, provided that this is intended for their own classes and research activities, under the condition that: (a) such copies are not resold and (b) reference to prior publication in this Journal (Journal name, issue, year and pages) are shown clearly and explicitly on the coversheets of all the copies taken of the paper.