Peer Review
The peer review process complies with national and international standards and guidelines, in particular the guidelines and recommendations of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), the CNPQ’s Research Integrity Committee, and the National Association of Graduate Studies and Research in Business Administration (ANPAD).
In case of doubts about the admissibility of the submission to the Revista de Direito da Faculdade Guanambi, pre-submission questions are accepted via email to [email protected].
Papers are reviewed by the Editorial Team regarding the adequacy of the profile and editorial line of the journal (desk review) and by external ad hoc reviewers regarding the content and quality of the contributions through double blind peer review.
DESK REVIEW – 30 DAYS
The Editor-in-Chief will carry out a desk review of the article submitted to Revista de Direito da Faculdade Guanambi in order to verify if it meets the ethical standards and minimum submission requirements demanded by the journal.
At that moment, the review will verify if the article has been submitted without information that could reveal its authorship and plagiarism will be checked through the Copyspider; the formal aspects of the article will also be reviewed according to the guidelines to authors, which will analyze the following aspects:
1 - Does the work comply with the publication rules of the Revista de Direito da Faculdade Guanambi?
2 - Is the work compatible with the journal's editorial line?
3 - Does the work present adequate and scientific language, without too many errors?
4 - Is the work unpublished?
5 - Is the topic addressed current and/or relevant?
6 - Does the article use up-to-date references and national and foreign authors representing the topic addressed?
If it is observed during the desk review process that the article does not comply with any of the formal requirements required by Revista de Direito da Faculdade Guanambi for submission, a report will be sent to the author(s) so that they can correct the observations within fifteen (15) days. If the author(s) finds that the deadline is too short to carry out the required changes, they may request an extension via e-mail or through the OJS system. If the author(s) remains inert, the article will be rejected.
If any irregularity is found that may be a violation of the academic or editorial ethical standards, or if it is proven that the submitted article is not original and unpublished, the article will be rejected. If the author(s) disagree with the reasons, they may request re-examination by the Editor-in-Chief of the journal, who will decide together with the editorial team.
If there is a preliminary rejection, the article may be resubmitted to the journal provided that originality is maintained and the indicated deficiencies are corrected.
b) DOUBLE BLIND PEER REVIEW – 120 DAYS
Once the desk review stage has been satisfactorily completed, the academic peer review process will begin under the double blind peer review system.
At this stage, the article will be sent to two anonymous peer reviewers of the journal, who are experts in the subject of the submitted article, outside the publishing institution, and, preferably, holders of the title of Doctor, so that, within twenty (20) days, they issue a critical opinion on the form and content of the reviewed article in order to collaborate with the Editor-in-Chief in the decision making about the compliance of the article with the academic quality standards necessary for its publication, paying attention to the following criteria:
- Is the title relevant, does it express the manuscript's discussion well, and does it fit the theme?
- Is the abstract of the article clear and accurate? Does it describe the objective, the method, the problem investigated, the results and the main conclusions?
- Do the keywords represent the content well, without necessarily repeating the title?
- Is the article unpublished and free of plagiarism?
- Is the text written in scientific language, without excessive spelling or grammatical errors?
- Does the article clearly define its objective(s), problem(s) and hypothesis(es)? Is there a concrete delimitation of your scientific research object?
- Is the article accurate, objective and concise? Does he present the ideas without deviating from his central theme?
- Does the article develop arguments in agreement with the theoretical basis adopted? Does the article present conclusions consistent with the development of your ideas?
- Is the methodology used adequate? Does the article sufficiently clarify your methodological options? If there is empirical research, is there an accurate description of its methodology and boundaries?
- Does the article present the fundamental doctrinal references of the topic addressed? Does the article use up-to-date and sufficient bibliography?
- Do the conclusions correspond to the arguments presented, as well as to the objectives of the work?
- Does the article address current and relevant topics in the scientific field?
- Is the article innovative in its field of study? Is there an unprecedented scientific contribution? or does it contain a new approach, although the topic has already been addressed?
The peer reviewers assume the commitment, with each submission received, that they do not know the author(s) of the submission, do not have conflicts of interest (personal, commercial, partisan, ideological, academic, or economic-financial with the object of the submission), have time to deliver the opinion, and are qualified to issue an opinion on the object of study of the submission.
The reviewers will issue opinions on the article, whose possible results are:
- Accepted
- Necessary corrections
- Submit again for review
- Rejected
If the opinions of the peer reviewers differ, so that one reviewer recommends the publication of the article and the other rejects it, the Editor-in-Chief may forward the article to a third reviewer to issue an opinion on the academic merit of the article.
Upon receiving the two required opinions, or the opinion of the third reviewer, when necessary, the Editor-in-Chief will decide whether to publish, request correction, or reject the article.
In all cases, the editorial decision and reviews will be sent by email to the author(s).
In case of disagreement with the decision taken by the Editor-in-Chief, the author(s) may request, via email, the re-examination of the decision, presenting the reasons for it.
c) ROUND OF CORRECTIONS
In the case of approval with mandatory corrections, the author(s) will have a period of twenty (20) days to make the necessary changes. If there is a need for more time, the author(s) must communicate to the Revista de Direito da Faculdade Guanambi, through the OJS system or by email, the time they believe is necessary to carry out the necessary corrections.
The author(s) must submit a reasoned response specifying the corrections made, the suggestions met, and justifying any refusals in a precise and scientific way without omitting any notes from the peer reviewers.
If the author(s) disagree with any observation and wish to enter into an academic dialogue with the reviewers, the Editor-in-Chief will act as an intermediary, always guaranteeing the confidentiality of the participants. In case of an insurmountable disagreement, the Editor-in-Chief will adopt the final decision taking into account the arguments presented.
The author(s) will send to the journal, through the OJS website of the Revista de Direito da Faculdade Guanambi, a new version of the article with the modifications requested by the Reviewers. Changes made to the submission text must use the color red to distinguish them from the original text before changes.
After the period of twenty (20) days has passed without the author(s) returning with the required corrections, it will be understood that the author(s) have given up on proceeding with the publication of the article, which will be rejected.
Based on the revised file (with marked changes) and the author's motivated response, the editor will make the final decision on whether to publish or reject the article.
d) PUBLICATION – 30 DAYS
After sending the updated version of the article, with the modifications required by the reviewers, the article will be sent for publication.
