Here are some suggestions for evaluators to make their opinions:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u2013 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;<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u2013 Bring not only the weak points of the article but also the positive aspects of the work;<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u2013 Try not just to point out problems in the assessment. Offer tips on how the author(s) can improve their work;<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u2013 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);<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u2013 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;<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u2013 Keep in mind that your review is essential to the author(s) and that it can help them improve their work;<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u2013 Be clear in your notes about work. Avoid evaluations that may further confuse the author(s);<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u2013 Be kind in your assessment. Treat the author(s) of the article the way you would like to be treated;<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u2013 Any sensitive information about the work that you deem relevant to be directed to the theme leaders and organizing team \u2013 that is not made available to the author(s) \u2013 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;<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u2013 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The following sources can help you in reviewing the works:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Brei, V. A., Farias, S. A. D., Matos, C. A. D., & Mazzon, J. A. (2017). Um guia de avalia\u00e7\u00e3o de artigos cient\u00edficos em marketing. Revista de Administra\u00e7\u00e3o de Empresas, 57(4), 391-400.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
https:\/\/www.scielo.br\/j\/rae\/a\/GTkKgyr7MHcLJ6453xrt4mb\/<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n Ferreira, M. (2014). Coment\u00e1rio editorial. Como rever um artigo: O papel do revisor e um roteiro para novos revisores. Revista Ibero Americana de Estrat\u00e9gia, 13(2), 1-9.<\/p>\n\n\n\n https:\/\/periodicos.uninove.br\/riae\/article\/view\/15202\/7398<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n Ferreira, M. P., Pinto, C. F., & Belfort, A. C. (2016). O que \u00e9 uma boa revis\u00e3o de artigo em administra\u00e7\u00e3o?. Revista Eletr\u00f4nica de Estrat\u00e9gia & Neg\u00f3cios, 9(2), 88-105.<\/p>\n\n\n\n https:\/\/iconline.ipleiria.pt\/bitstream\/10400.8\/6036\/1\/2016_REEN_boa%20revisao%20de%20artigo.pdf<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n Serra, F. A. R., & Ferreira, M. P. (2015). Proposta de um Modelo para o Instrumento de Avalia\u00e7\u00e3o pelos Pareceristas. Revista Ibero-Americana de Estrat\u00e9gia, 14(1), 1-6.<\/p>\n\n\n\n