Guidelines for Evaluators

The expected contribution of the evaluation refers to the analysis of academic-scientific consistency, regarding the problem, theoretical foundation, applied methodology, results obtained and described, analysis and conclusions about the object and phenomena studied/researched.

The evaluation criteria applied to documents submitted to the journal take into account the relevance of the topic, originality of the contribution in the journal's thematic areas, clarity of the text, adequacy of the bibliography, structuring and theoretical development, methodology used, conclusions and contribution offered to knowledge of the area.

The RIPPMar journal expects to receive opinions from ad hoc evaluators that answer the following questions:

1. The title is appropriate to the content of the document;
2. The summary succinctly describes the content of the document;
3. The keywords are appropriate and reflect the content of the document;
4. The objectives are presented clearly;
5. The theoretical foundation is current and consistent;
6. The methodological procedures are adequate and feasible;
7. The analysis is consistent with the data and information collected and presented;
8. The data supporting the text is available;
9. The discussion is interrelated to the proposed objectives and the literature presented;
10. The writing follows the standard expected of a scientific text qualified for publication;
11. Ethical issues are noted.

IMPORTANT: Ad hoc evaluators are requested to complete the OJS system metadata regarding: ORCID number; link to the Lattes Curriculum; topics of interest for evaluation.

Double Blind Peer Review

The document is evaluated by peers in a double-blind mode (Double Blind Peer Review). During the evaluation, ad hoc evaluators can access the text securely through the journal's OJS system.

The original documents are forwarded to ad hoc evaluators with a minimum degree of doctorate or recognized knowledge or, in some cases, members of the Editorial Board, especially to resolve situations of conflicting evaluations.

The ad hoc evaluator must record his opinion on the Evaluation Form available in the specific evaluation round, via the OJS system. The ad hoc evaluator, if preferred, can make suggestions and send an edited version of the document to share with the author. The Editorial Team must take the necessary precautions to preserve anonymity between the parties involved.

Ad hoc evaluators must clearly indicate all points that are requested for adjustments and corrections.

The deadlines established by the journal are as follows: response to the evaluation request: 5 days; document evaluation: 15 days. It will be up to the Editorial Team to decide whether to give a longer period of time to respond or replace the ad hoc evaluator.

Decision After Double-Blind Peer Review

Opinions can result in 5 (five) types of evaluations:

1. Accept.
2. Accept, with style review (template), editorial standards and grammatical review, with monitoring by RIPPMar Editors.
3. Accept, with review of small content adjustments, without the need to return to the ad hoc evaluator, with a deadline of up to 15 days for feedback.
4. Accept, with significant revision of content, with the addition of additional text, with the need to return to the ad hoc evaluator, with a period of up to 30 days for return.
5. Do not accept, when the evaluation highlights significant concerns regarding the theoretical, methodological or ethical foundations.

The revisions requested in items 3 and 4 must be returned accompanied by a document that indicates the changes made and justifies the points that were not met as requested by the ad hoc evaluator.

In the case of item 4, the document goes through a new round of evaluation before a new editorial decision is made.

In the case of item 5, the ad hoc evaluator must justify the decision, indicating the inaccuracies for the text not to be accepted for publication.

The publication of the document is subject to compliance with the recommendations of the ad hoc evaluators.

It is worth mentioning that for ethical reasons, ad hoc evaluators must have the common sense to refuse the evaluation request if they have a conflict of interest in relation to the document presented.

RIPPMar makes a specific evaluation form available and sent in the OJS system. The Editorial Team is responsible for maintaining anonymity between the parties, to guarantee impartiality and impartiality during the process, except in the case of preprints. It is worth mentioning that the Editorial Team will take action in situations where there is a need to remove inappropriate or offensive language.

If necessary, ad hoc evaluators can contact the Editorial Team to resolve any doubts.