Diretrizes para avaliadores
Ethics in evaluation
The aim of peer review should be to qualify the article for publication.
The journal follows the double-anonymous peer review modality.
Ethical principles for evaluators
- Self-evaluation: self-questioning about the level of mastery of the area covered by the manuscript to be evaluated;
- Punctuality: notification in cases where the manuscript cannot be assessed or the requested deadline cannot be met;
- Confidentiality: non-disclosure of the manuscript beyond those involved in the editorial process;
- Recognition: recognition and description of basic bibliography not used as a source for the manuscripts evaluated and of non-copyright ideas not correctly referenced;
- Non-evaluation: do not consider evaluating articles that present conflicts of interest or competition;
- Non-dissemination: of unpublished content without proper authorization from the author/s;
- Competence: standard of clear and thorough comments, although objective;
- Non-identification: only evaluate anonymous manuscripts;
- Non-communication: not communicating directly with authors without authorization from the editorial team;
- Commitment: to report any suspected ethical violations or irregularities;
- Anti-plagiarism: reporting signs of plagiarism;
- Publication: always provide constructive feedback that encourages the author to publish their article;
- Specificity: be specific in your criticism, even if it is objective;
- Veracity: provide honest, frank, unbiased feedback on the manuscript to support your recommendation;
- Identity: respect the author's language and style, within the parameters observed;
- Scientific validation: suggestions must be based on valid academic/scientific reasons.
Evaluation credits
An author who has already received contributions from peer reviews to qualify an article submitted to a journal should consider being a reviewer and participating in the editorial activity of the journals.
The journal offers credit to evaluators by issuing an ad hoc evaluation certificate, publishing the evaluators' names on the journal's website and sending a thank-you note by post.
Evaluation criteria
The purpose of the evaluation should be to qualify the work for publication. In this sense, it is desirable that the evaluator's gaze is oriented towards contributing to the quality of the manuscript and not towards assigning a label or inspecting it.
As avaliações serão elaboradas seguindo formulário específico para cada tipo de trabalho submetido. Ao final da avaliação, o avaliador irá apresentar uma recomendação para o manuscrito. As recomendações podem ser:
- Accept: the reviewer recommends that the work be accepted in its current form, with no need for revisions.
- Accept with mandatory corrections: the evaluator recommends that the article be accepted subject to the authors making corrections, without the need for a new round of evaluation.
- Resubmit for evaluation: the evaluators make notes that are intended to contribute to the qualification of the manuscript. Once the authors have taken on board the reviewers' comments, a new round of evaluation will begin.
- Submit to another journal: the evaluators recommend that the manuscript be sent to another journal because it is out of scope or does not meet the minimum criteria for publication in this journal.
- Reject: the authors recommend that the work should not be accepted and present their arguments based on the criteria in the evaluation form.
All manuscripts sent to the journal and accepted in the pre-evaluation stage are sent to at least two evaluators in the peer review stage. Despite the evaluators' recommendations, the editor's decision is sovereign, and he may or may not accept the recommendations.
Evaluation form
Follow the link to view and download the evaluation form.
