Blind Review Process
The duration of the publication process begins with the submission of the article carried out by the authors, within the OJS system of the RGSA.
•After submission, the system sends a confirmation message to the authors and, at the same time, to the Editor-in-Chief, notifying them of the new submission.
•The texts go through the first stage, the “Desk Review”, in which it is verified if the article fits the scope of the journal, if there is a theoretical-empirical contribution and if it is in accordance with the indicated format. This stage lasts around 1 month, and may vary depending on demand, resulting in rejection of the article or selection to continue in the evaluation process.
• Every article submitted to the RGSA is evaluated by at least two evaluators (double blind review). It is requested that the evaluation be carried out within a period of 20 days. The double peer review guarantees the anonymity of both writers and reviewers.
•Considering the deadline for the "Desk Review" and "Double Blind Review" stages, with the possibility of sending it to a third reviewer, in case there is a conflict in the decision of the first two, RGSA proposes to return a first review of the article within the average term of 3 months.
•Evaluations are made using standardized evaluation forms, with space for personalized comments, which are forwarded to the author(s) in case of conditional acceptance, corrections or rejection.
•The evaluation considers: the relevance of the article, textual structure, coherence between introduction and problematization, relevant theoretical framework, rigorous research methods and techniques, analysis and consistent discussion of data and conclusions/final considerations.
• In case of a negative opinion by two evaluators, the article is automatically rejected.
• If the opinions are different, the article is forwarded to a third specialist.
• If there is a need for mandatory corrections, the author is requested to make them within a maximum of 30 days. The new version of the document is again sent to the evaluators for their review.
• It is possible to have a second round of corrections, before being definitively accepted. Or, there may also be the possibility that the corrections have not been satisfactorily carried out. In the latter case, the article is rejected.
•If accepted, the Editor-in-Chief sends a communication to the authors through the system.
• If accepted, authors must pay a "Publication Fee" in the amount of 990 usd (990 US dollars) to Open Access Publications Ltd., the company that manages RGSA. After payment and sending of the receipt, as well as sending the English language version of the article. We move on to the editing process, which will take approximately one month.
• When the edition is published, an email is sent with the access link to all members.
Evaluation Form
1. RELEVANCE OF THE ARTICLE
- Does the article present novelty or scientific relevance (theme, theory, method, result)?
- Does the article deal with theoretical or empirical elements in the socio-environmental area?
2. TEXTUAL STRUCTURE
- Does the title, abstract/abstract and keywords represent a good idea of the article as a whole?
3. INTRODUCTION AND TROUBLESHOOTING
- Make an assessment of the introduction, problematization and object of the work.
4. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
- Assess whether the state-of-the-art on the subject is considered and whether relevant works on the subject are used.
5. RESEARCH METHODS AND TECHNIQUES
- Evaluate whether the research methods and techniques used allowed to obtain consistent results.
6. DATA ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION OF RESULTS
- Comment if there is consistency in the analysis of the data and if the discussion of the results is adequate.
7. CONCLUSION OR FINAL CONSIDERATIONS
- Comment if the conclusion or final considerations are consistent with the proposed problem and objective, as well as they contemplate the different parts of the article.
8. GENERAL ASSESSMENT
-In the space below, point out suggestions to the authors for improving the article regarding:
(a) Content (summary, introduction, theoretical framework, research method, research results, analysis and discussion of the results and final considerations (main conclusions, study limitations and recommendations for future studies);
(b) Form (structure, language, norms);
9. CONCLUSION OF OPINION
-Final Recommendation:
Approved ( )
Mandatory corrections ( )
Disapproved ( )
