Article evaluation process

The editorial team may summarily reject articles that do not comply with editorial rules regarding the number of co-authors, title, rules formalities, originality, suitability of the theme to the focus and scope of the journal. Preliminary approved articles will be directed to evaluations by pairs. 

When the article is rejected in the preliminary evaluation, the authors will be communicated by the editorial team that will indicate the reasons for the decision. The author may ask the editorial committee to review the decision. Rejected articles may be presented for later edition, if originality is maintained and identified shortcomings have been corrected. 

Peer review 

After preliminary control by the editorial team, the work will be sent by OJS, without any elements that allow its identification, for analysis by anonymous reviewers, members of the journal’s body of reviewers to qualitative assessment of its form and content, following the process known as double-blind peer review. 

In the evaluation of the reviewers, the works may be rejected, approved or approved with reservations ( needed corrections ). In the latter case, the author will be informed of the necessary corrections. The deadline for correction is 15 ( fifteen ) days. The final decision on the publication of the work rests with the committee editorial.

 In case of two discordant opinions about the publication the decision will be carried out by the editorial commission, which will make the reasoned communication to the author of the reasons for rejection when applicable.

Guidelines for Evaluating Articles in Arquivos do Mudi

Dear reviewer, upon receiving the article, we ask that you perform the following action: Comments may be made directly in the body of the document in question; During the evaluation process of articles submitted to Arquivos do Mudi Journal, it is necessary to consider the aspects listed below:

01- Is the topic addressed relevant and is the article original? ( ) Yes ( ) No ( ) Readjust (suggestions for readjustment should be cited in Comments, considerations and/or observations)

02- Is the title succinct? Does it clearly express the content of the work? ( ) Yes ( ) No ( ) Readjust (suggestions for readjustment should be cited in Comments, considerations and/or observations)

03- Are the “Abstract” and “Indexing Terms” informative” (DeCS/MeSH)? ( ) Yes ( ) No ( ) Readjust (suggestions for readjustment should be cited in Comments, considerations and/or observations)

04- Does the “Introduction” focus on the subject of the work? ( ) Yes ( ) No ( ) Readjust (suggestions for readjustment should be cited in Comments, considerations and/or observations)

05- Are the objectives appropriate, considering the theme of the article? ( ) Yes ( ) No ( ) Readjust (suggestions for readjustment should be cited in Comments, considerations and/or observations)

06- Is there coherence between the objectives and the method? ( ) Yes ( ) No ( ) Readjust (suggestions for readjustment should be cited in Comments, considerations and/or observations)

07- Is the method adequate, correct and complete?( ) Yes ( ) No ( ) Readjust (suggestions for readjustment should be cited in Comments, considerations and/or observations)

08- Are the statistical procedures for data analysis appropriate?( ) Yes ( ) No ( ) Readjust ( ) Not applicable (suggestions for readjustment should be cited in Comments, considerations and/or observations)

09- Are the results presented clearly and the discussion adequate?( ) Yes ( ) No ( ) Readjust (suggestions for readjustment should be cited in Comments, considerations and/or observations)

10- Are the illustrations (figures, maps, photos, charts and tables) appropriate? Are they complete? Are the captions self-explanatory?( ) Yes ( ) No ( ) Readjust ( ) Not applicable (suggestions for adaptation should be cited in Comments, considerations and/or observations)

11 - Are the conclusions consistent with the objectives and justified by the data?( ) Yes ( ) No ( ) Adapt (suggestions for adaptation should be cited in Comments, considerations and/or observations)

12 - Are all the scientific literature cited necessary, adequate and up-to-date?( ) Yes ( ) No ( ) Adapt (suggestions for adaptation should be cited in Comments, considerations and/or observations)

13 - Does the article present any contribution to the knowledge of the scientific community?( ) Yes ( ) No ( ) Adapt (suggestions for adaptation should be cited in Comments, considerations and/or observations)

Evaluation Opinion:

( ) Accept

( )Required Revisions: the article should be reviewed and corrected by the author, following the recommendations suggested by the evaluator in order to improve the presentation and quality of the article. article.

(  )  Submit the article to another journal. Outside the scope of the journal.

( ) Reject: the article should NOT be accepted for publication. This is because it must be completely reformulated according to the justifications presented in the review. However, the authors can correct the article and submit and start a new evaluation process.