Submissions received by the journal are pre-evaluated in desk review by editor. When the submission meets the requirements / norms and focus of the journal, and has no evidence of plagiarism, it is sent to two reviewers with knowledge on the topic in a blind review method. When two reviewers have divergent decisions, a third is consulted for a final decision.
The reviewer will have 30 days (one part for him to signal about his availability, and a second for the review itself). Reviewers receive general guidelines for review. At the end, the reviewer gives a qualitative opinion about the article, and its evaluation can be: Accept submission, Required revisions, submit to the new round or Decline submission.
- When the opinion is “Accept submission”, an email is sent to author and the article is forwarded for publishing for publication.
- When the decision is “Required reviews” the author receives 30 days to adjust and forward a new version with individual letters where he points out the adjustments made according to the suggestion of each reviewer. In case the author complies with the indicated suggestions, the article is forwarded for publishing for publication purposes.
- When the decision is “submit to a new round”, major revisions are required. Authors will have 30 days to adjust and a new evaluation round is established, which can be split into a new opinion in blind review, which are: Accept submission, Required reviews, submit to a new round, or Refuse submission.
- When the decision is "Decline submission", authors receive an e-mail informing that the article will not be published and the comments sent by the referees are sent in an attachment.
Please keep in mind that this format is merely a guide for giving an opinion on the articles. If you do not wish to fill it out completely, remember that the main thing is to provide the authors with a course of action to enable them to improve their proposal or, in case of rejection, to give solid and academic arguments in support of your recommendation to the editors.
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.
Plagiarism verification with Copyspider.