Guidelines for reviewers

  • Here are some suggestions for evaluators to make their opinions:

    – Note that there are three types of work: scientific articles, technical reports, and posters. Consider assessing according to the specific type of work you receive;

    – Bring not only the weak points of the article but also the positive aspects of the work;

    – Try not just to point out problems in the assessment. Offer tips on how the author(s) can improve their work;

    – Its evaluation is qualitative (minimum of 125 words to describe the strengths and opportunities for improvement) and quantitative (assessing with grades from 1 to 5 the objective, method, bibliography used, writing, contribution, and relevance of the work);

    – Try to be constructive in your assessments. Remember that it is an article submitted for a congress and that it can still be adjusted for a later definitive submission in a journal;

    – Keep in mind that your review is essential to the author(s) and that it can help them improve their work;

    – Be clear in your notes about work. Avoid evaluations that may further confuse the author(s);

    – Be kind in your assessment. Treat the author(s) of the article the way you would like to be treated;

    – Any sensitive information about the work that you deem relevant to be directed to the theme leaders and organizing team – that is not made available to the author(s) – put it in the “Comments restricted to coordination” field. Use this field to clarify your final opinion of the article’s quality. Avoid indecision in your impressions of the work;

    – If you understand that the article is good and can already be directed for publication in a journal, indicate it to the fast track. Otherwise, do not make this recommendation.

    The following sources can help you in reviewing the works:

    Brei, V. A., Farias, S. A. D., Matos, C. A. D., & Mazzon, J. A. (2017). Um guia de avaliação de artigos científicos em marketing. Revista de Administração de Empresas, 57(4), 391-400.

    Ferreira, M. (2014). Comentário editorial. Como rever um artigo: O papel do revisor e um roteiro para novos revisores. Revista Ibero Americana de Estratégia, 13(2), 1-9.

    Ferreira, M. P., Pinto, C. F., & Belfort, A. C. (2016). O que é uma boa revisão de artigo em administração?. Revista Eletrônica de Estratégia & Negócios, 9(2), 88-105.

    Serra, F. A. R., & Ferreira, M. P. (2015). Proposta de um Modelo para o Instrumento de Avaliação pelos Pareceristas. Revista Ibero-Americana de Estratégia, 14(1), 1-6.

    Shigaki, H. B., & Patrus, R. (2016). Avaliação de artigos científicos em administração: Critérios e modelos de avaliadores experientes. Teoria e Prática em Administração (TPA), 6(2), 107-135.

    Vídeo: Capacitação de novos avaliadores ADI