\u2013 Note that there are three types of work: scientific articles; technological reports; and posters. Target your assessment to the specific type of work you receive;
\u2013 Bring not only the weak points of the article, but also the positive aspects of the work;
\u2013 Try not to just point out problems in the assessment. Offer tips on how the author(s) can improve their work;
\u2013 Your evaluation is qualitative (minimum of 125 words to describe strengths and opportunities for improvement) and quantitative (evaluating with grades from 1 to 5 the objective, method, bibliography used, writing, contribution and relevance of the work);
\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;
\u2013 Keep in mind that your evaluation is important to the author(s) and that it can help them to improve their work;
\u2013 Be clear in your notes about work. Avoid reviews that may further confuse the author(s);
\u2013 Be kind in your assessment. Treat the author(s) of the article the same way you would like to be treated;
\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 field \u201cComments restricted to coordination\u201d. Use this field to be clear about your final opinion of the quality of the article. Avoid indecisions in your impressions of work;
\u2013 If you understand that the article is good and can already be directed to publication in a journal, indicate it to the fast track. Otherwise, do not make this recommendation.<\/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. 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. 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. 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. Shigaki, H. B., & Patrus, R. (2016). Avalia\u00e7\u00e3o de artigos cient\u00edficos em administra\u00e7\u00e3o: Crit\u00e9rios e modelos de avaliadores experientes. Teoria e Pr\u00e1tica em Administra\u00e7\u00e3o (TPA), 6(2), 107-135.
https:\/\/www.scielo.br\/j\/rae\/a\/GTkKgyr7MHcLJ6453xrt4mb\/<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n
https:\/\/periodicos.uninove.br\/riae\/article\/view\/15202\/7398<\/a><\/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
https:\/\/periodicos.uninove.br\/riae\/article\/view\/15568\/7589<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n
https:\/\/periodicos.ufpb.br\/index.php\/tpa\/article\/view\/28445<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n