This Journal’s Editorial Process involves three eliminatory stages as described below:
- During the first stage an article is received and examined by the Editor-in-Chief and subsequently by the Editor of the Section to which it was submitted for an admission review (desk review). Editors may occasionally request a double-blind opinion by a Scientific Editorial Body member (specialized in the article’s area) in order to support their decision. During this process the editors will ensure that the article complies with the basic requisites for approval by the editorial process:
Scientific relevance;
A significant theoretical and/or methodological contribution in the field of knowledge in Administration;
unprecedented; correct language, with special attention to the quality of the text (orthography, concordance and punctuation), regardless of the language in which it is submitted;
Good overall presentation;
List of bibliographical references representing the topic in question’s state of the art, necessarily covering articles published in the last five years in Brazilian and international scholarly circles;
Adequacy with editorial policy and the section to which it was submitted.
Articles not in accordance with these basic requisites or with the criteria and technical features required by RAM (see editorial policy, policies by subject area sections e guidance to authors) will be rejected by the Editor-in-Chief or by the Section Editor.
- The second stage consists of an anonymous review of papers submitted for publication and the double blind review system. These papers will be forwarded by the Section Editors to the ad hoc reviewers, selected on the basis of their fields of specialization and availability, whose affiliations are in States other than those of the States of the authors. The Section Editors coordinate this phase of the editorial process. Papers approved will be forwarded to the Editor-in-Chief with a suggestion for publication. The Section Editors may request a double blind expert opinion from a member of the Scientific Editorial Body (specializing in the field of the paper) in order to support their decisions.
- During the third stage of the review process, the Editor-in-Chief takes the final decision on publication. The Editor-in-Chief may also request a member of the Scientific Editorial Committee to validate the previous stages, through a double blind review process. In this case, the paper approved during the previous phase and the respective expert opinions of the ad hoc reviewers (not identified) are forwarded to a member of the Scientific Editorial Committee (specializing in the field of the paper) for analysis and validation. Approved papers are presented and recommended for publication to the Editor-in-Chief by the Scientific Editorial Committee member.
Approved articles are published with the name of the Editor in charge. Following approval for publication, the authors should sign the “Free Copyright Assignment” document, a draft of which will be remitted by email to the authors, with the reservation of rights, including for translation, to RAM. The authors should sign the letter singly or jointly and forward it by conventional mail to RAM within two weeks from receiving by email.
The criteria employed for assessing articles are as follows:
TITLE
The title must reflect precisely the article’s intention
INTRODUCTION
• Contains a rationale of the problem in question
• Describes the justifications for performing the study
• Describes previous relevant surveys that provided am approach to the study
• Describes differences regarding other studies already published
• Makes clear what is being replied (objective)
• Gives rise to advances of knowledge on the subject under study
• In case of an empirical study, puts forth proposals or assumptions that are being created, redefined or added
• Clearly puts forth the survey’s design, in the case of an empirical survey
• Poses arguments that highlight the reasons for the study’s relevance
• Points out clearly what is known and what is unknown
• The topic is up-to-date, involves creativity and an unprecedented approach
THEORETICAL GROUNDS
• Reflects the state of the art of what is under investigation
• Provides a convincing support for scientific knowledge on the topic approached
• Puts forth causal logical or empirical relations while establishing proposals or assumptions
• A review of literature explicits which were the bases employed review of literature includes studies with a lag not in excess of 5 years with regard to the submission date
• The study reflects a critical “conversation” by the mentioned authors
• If the study is a theoretical trial, there is a view stated in its beginning
• The arguments employed in the theoretical trial support the initial view
• The theoretical trial contains a relevant scientific contribution
METHOD – ANALYSIS
• The method’s clear description – comprehensive, objective
• Method appropriate to the problem under consideration
• Analysis appropriate to the method
• Analysis performed in detail
DISCUSSION – FINAL CONSIDERATIONS
• The conclusions counter conclusions from other studies
• The results are directly related to the issue broached in the introduction
• The discussion reflects convincing arguments on the progress gained in the knowledge area under study
• The conclusions consider that the passage of time is a factor that changes results. In other words, • The results have are valid for the future
• The conclusion reasserts the study’s importance and is convincing when justifying bridging the gap detected
• Does not set forth empirical or logical results unrelated with the objectives
LIMITATIONS – FUTURE STUDIES
• The study explicits which were the limitations
• The study submits considerations on future studies
CASE STUDY
• A summary of the SURVEY PROTOCOL is submitted
• Makes clear which was the ANALYSIS UNIT
• MULTIPLE SOURCES of evidence were employed
• Specifies which was the DESIGN ADOPTED (simple, multiple, holistic, built-in)
• Explains which was the STRATEGY for data analysis
• Describes the RELATION among sources of evidence
• Includes elements that reflect attention with RELIABILITY
• Includes elements that assure INTERNAL VALIDITY
• The case sets out CONCURRING THEORIES
PUBLISHING
• Text structure and editing appropriate for a scientific paper
• Adequacy with the APA standard
• Clear and concise language, free from spelling or grammar mistakes
Fluent and pleasant reading
The opinions, ideas and concepts contained in the papers are the sole responsibility of their author(s). The Institution or any editorial entities related to this Journal accept no liability for them.
The papers submitted must be unpublished in Brazil and elsewhere in the world. This Journal does not publish papers from guest authors or papers translated from foreign scientific periodicals. However, papers that have already been disclosed at congresses, seminars and similar events may be submitted, provided that there are no constraints imposed by the organizers of these events. All papers submitted, including those that have already been disclosed at congresses, seminars and similar events will undergo the review process described above.
This Journal believes that the quality of the expert opinions underpinning publication decisions for each issue of this periodical must reflect a solid, transparent and meticulous review process whose purpose must be to further knowledge in the field while also fostering researchers’ development.
Activities by reviewers are seen as part of an ongoing collective process for constructing knowledge that must underpin content enhancement and the manner in which research projects are conducted. In order for this intention to materialize in the publication of papers whose excellence is acknowledged at domestic and international levels, reviewers engaged by this Journal must follow the guidelines listed below, grounded on the document entitled Good Scientific Publication Practices issued by the National Association for Graduate Studies and Research in Administration (ANPAD):
Reviewers should not agree to examine a manuscript if they feel they are not professionally qualified in the respective topic.
Reviewers must advise the Editor if an author’s identity is known to them.
Reviewers must specifically agree to comply with timeframes or discuss any alterations thereto for the review process of a paper proposed by the editor, returning it by the agreed on date.
Reviewers must study the editorial policy and reviewer instructions carefully, following them.
Reviewers must initially complete an in-depth reading at a single session and may also mark or note down important points during this initial reading. However, they must be attentive to the paper as a whole. Subsequently, they must return to the review process, conduct a detailed analysis and draw up an expert opinion.
Reviewers must consider the existence of several paradigms, striving to ensure that their reviews are neutral. Papers must be analyzed in terms of their relevance and internal and external consistency, rather than on the basis of theoretical or methodological preferences.
Reviewers must list any problems that can be corrected, stating what should be done to rectify them while also assessing the cost-benefit of the requested alterations in terms of enhancing the quality of the paper.
Reviewers must consider the references used, ensuring that they cover related international and domestic literature on the topic addressed by the paper, whether through the inclusion of classics or literature updated during the past five years. When timely, they must suggest relevant references to the authors for rewriting the paper.
Whenever possible, reviewers must indicate all alterations required and avoid further requests being issued for each re-submission, when this could have been mentioned earlier.
When receiving a new version of a paper, reviewers must ensure that requests for alterations issued previously have been complied with or were otherwise justified.
Reviewer opinions must present well-grounded and objective arguments that clearly justify the favorable or unfavorable stance adopted for the paper under analysis. Extremely concise opinions should not be used, providing only brief explanations of how a final decision was reached on a paper’s acceptance or rejection.
The fields on the review sheet requesting analysis of positive and negative aspects related to the theoretical grounds, methodology and structure of the paper are mandatory and must be completed carefully.
A constructive approached focused on enhancement must permeate the review process. This means that a paper may be resubmitted for successive reviews as required, until reaching the necessary level of maturity.
Compliance by the paper with the editorial line adopted by this Journal, the Guidelines for Authors, and a smooth flow and internal coherence of the body text must be ascertained, as well as the use of appropriate language.
Prospective candidates wishing to apply for positions as ad hoc reviewers must forward an email to this Journal necessarily stating: the section of this Journal for which they would like to work; five keywords outlining their field of specialization, certified by registration in the Lattes résumé of their degrees and scientific bibliographic output in Qualis periodicals and at events acknowledged as high quality in the field of Management knowledge; the number of papers they are capable of reviewing each year; the State and country in which they live; and the internet address (URL) of their résumé (for Brazilian candidates the Lattes résumé URL on the website of the National Council for Scientific and Technological Development – CNPq). These applications from candidates will be assessed by the Editor-in-Chief and Section Editors.
The members of the Scientific Editorial Committee are recruited through invitations issued by the Journal Editor. The activities of the members of this Committee are voluntary and not remunerated. The pre-requisites for participation are the same as those established for the ad hoc reviewers. Additionally, the members of this Committee must have held PhD degrees for at least five years, with significant scientific and technical biographical output, acknowledged as high quality by the editorial staff in their specialty fields.
