Information For Authors
Articles received for possible publication in the Revista Famecos will first be evaluated by its Editorial Team. Those who are outside the editorial criteria of the journal will be rejected.
Parallel with the evaluation, the article goes through a review in Turnitin, a program that detects various types of plagiarism, indicating the address and the name of the plagiarized article. The editorial team checks the data. In the case of plagiarism, one paragraph is enough for the article to be returned to the author, indicating the problem. In the case of self-plagiarism, the maximum allowed is 10% or 50% of the text when it is the result of master's or doctoral thesis or dissertation. Anything above that, the article is returned, indicating the problem. At this stage, the authors have a chance to make the necessary changes and resubmit the article for consideration by the Journal.
In case of plagiarism not being detected by Turnitin and is discovered after its publication, the magazine will do the necessary research, case by case, and, if confirmed, will make his recantation, as COPE guidelines (Committee on Publication Ethics), available at: http://publicationethics.org/resources/guidelines.
In addition to the Turnitin, editors will be evaluating whether the text fits within the scope of the journal and its editorial criteria. If not, it will be returned to the author. If the text is considered completely new, the next step concerns the evaluation by the executive editor of the following items:
- Complete data on the author's connection to an institution, relevance of the topic to the magazine's objectives and its indexes, check the title of the main author (mandatorily DOCTOR), summary with all the requested data; keywords, originality, blind submission by the same author article published in the Revista Famecos every two years; application of the ABNT and the specific rules of the journal with respect to all items; Items with a maximum of two authors, one of whom "Doc" compulsory; relevance of the topic to the magazine's objectives and its indexes. Correct and complete filling of metadata, scientific language, application of the grammatical rules of the English language, good vocabulary, relevance of the research, the number of authors of the same article, adaptation and updating of the theoretical framework.
In being approved, the article goes on to stage "in review". At this stage, the assessment process follows the principles of peer review. The process used is the double-blind evaluation, in which evaluators are not identified to authors and vice versa.
In this submission stage, the editors indicate two referees, which are part of its renowned and competent Editorial Board and ad hoc reviewers. In case of divergence in opinions, the text is sent to a third evaluator.
The evaluators make comments and suggestions for changes and issue an opinion on the approval for publication. The editors, in possession of these reviews, make the decision. In the event of discrepancies between evaluators, the final decision is the editor. When changes are suggested, these will be forwarded to the authors and, after the corrections, the article may be forwarded to the evaluators to determine whether the requirements have been met.
The assessor is instructed to read the entire manuscript, preferably taking notes while reading. Criticism should be presented objectively and constructively and offensive messages are not accepted by the publisher, which, for scientific publishing rules, edit assessments before sending to the authors.
When the article is approved by the evaluators, a letter is sent to the author by communicating that your article will be published in the edition that is in progress or later, depending on the number of items already assessed.
The referees are instructed to evaluate the following aspects: theoretical and empirical content, full knowledge of scientific literature, theme today, contribution to the specific area of knowledge, approach originality, perfect and detailed description of the methodology used, correct text structure and good quality of writing.
In meeting these criteria, evaluators should recommend the full acceptance of the text. Otherwise, the evaluator may refuse the item or suggest modifications to reassess. In this case, the Editorial Board will forward the suggestions to re elaborate to the author. If it is reworked, taking into account all the comments of reviewers, the article may again be submitted for evaluation at the magazine's website, requiring no new peer evaluations.
If the article is fully approved in the above mentioned topics, it will be published in the Ahead of Print (AOP) system, which anticipates the publication of the text before the journal goes to final print. At this stage, the DOI is labeled and validated.
The articles are evaluated and posted on the site, one by one, once they have been revised according to the ABNT norms and the Revista Famecos norms, as well as typing and correct presentation of references. After a new revision by the authors and the technical team, the text is sent to publishing. Before the final publication, the author receives a letter, which requests the reconfirmation that the article has not been published elsewhere. The text is posted in the final edition after the author has confirmed its originality and after one more check in Turnitin.
Breakdown of evaluation criteria
The publication of articles is subject to the approval of reviewers and, if applicable, compliance with its recommendations. It is considered: the originality in the treatment of the theme, the consistency and rigor of the approach, the contribution to the area of Communication, as well as the theme of the journal. The reviewers’ names will remain confidential, as well as the author’s name to them.
To approve the articles, the reviewers should consider the quality of the text (grammar, stylistic, vocabulary, scientific language, clarity of ideas, appropriate deductions to the premises, appropriate use of quotations), relevance of content, correct application of ABNT - author-date system (abstract, title and keywords), prominence of results, scientific advancement to the area, pertinent choice of methodology as well as its correct application. Results should be presented clearly throughout the text or in the final considerations.
