Submissions received by the journal are pre-evaluated in desk review. 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 a period of 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- When the decision is "Decline submission", authors receive an e-mail informing that the article will not be published and the comments sent by the referees are sent in an attachment.
The evaluators will guide their judgment and the opinion of the submissions assigned to them, taking into account the following evaluation guidelines:
1 - Title- Is the title consistent with the main idea of the article?
2 - General Aspects -Is the theme related to the Area in which it is inserted? -Is it relevant to the area? -Is the objective of the work adequate? -Are the study boundaries established? -Is it an original contribution?
3 - Form and Style-Is the extension acceptable? (maximum of 20 and minimum of 10 pages, respectively) -Is the organization of the article in sections and subsections adequate? (guidelines for authors in the journal) -Is the report clear, impartial and non-wordy? -Is the written text adequate in terms of spelling, syntax, sentence and paragraph construction? -Do the bibliographical references follow the journal's guidelines? and Figures are configured according to the journal's orientation?
4 - Summary / Abstract-Is the summary clear about the important points and the results of the work? -Is the extension adequate? (maximum of 200 words) -Are the keywords adequate?
5 - Literature review-Is the literature review well organized, does it contain the classic references of the subject and is it recent? -The literature is critically examined, representing the state of the art ? -Is the relationship between the current problem and previous research very clear? -Follow the recommendation to use at least 65% of references from articles published in scientific journals?
6 - Methodology-Are the methods and materials used adequate and well presented? - Are they presented in a scientific way (allow the work to be reproduced)? - Is the methodology compared to those normally used in similar classic works? - If applicable, are the universe and sample described? - Is the sampling method adequate and consistent? ?
7 - Results and Discussion-Are Tables and Figures used efficiently? Are they all called in the text? -Was the methods used in the data analysis applied correctly and properly? -Does the article represent work effectively concluded with discussion? -Is the discussion pertinent? Is it coherent? Does it demonstrate the author's preparation and knowledge? -Does the article spark the reviewer's interest? -Does the article contain reproducible results?
8 - Conclusions-Are the conclusions clearly established? -Do the research data support the conclusions? -The conclusions are relevant to the current state of the art? -Are generalizations restricted to the universe from which the sample was extracted? -Is there a conclusion explaining the relevance of the results and their implications (strengths)? - In the conclusion are suggestions for future studies presented?
9 - Reviews Suggested (General Comments from the Reviewer to the author): 10- Observations to the editor:
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.