– Please note that there are four types of submissions: scientific articles; technological articles/reports; Technical and Technological Product Reports – PTT; and posters. Direct your evaluation according to the specific type of submission you receive;
– Highlight not only the weaknesses of the work, but also its positive aspects;
– Try not only to point out problems. Offer suggestions on how the author(s) can improve the work;
– Your evaluation should include both qualitative (minimum of 125 words describing strengths and opportunities for improvement) and quantitative (assigning scores from 1 to 5 for the objectives, methodology, literature, writing, contribution, and relevance of the work) components;
– The reviewers must aim to be constructive in your review. Keep in mind that this is a paper submitted to a conference and may still be revised for future journal publication;
– Remember that your evaluation is important to the author(s) and can help them improve their work;
– Be clear in your comments. Avoid feedback that may confuse the author(s) further;
– Be respectful in your review. Treat the author(s) the way you would like to be treated;
– Any sensitive information about the submission that you consider important to address with the theme leaders and organizing committee — information that should not be shared with the author(s) — should be included in the “Comments restricted to the field coordinator. Use this field to clearly state your final opinion regarding the quality of the paper. Avoid indecisiveness in your impressions of the work;
– If you believe the paper is strong and ready to be submitted to a journal, recommend it for the fast track. If not, do not make that recommendation.
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. https://www.scielo.br/j/rae/a/GTkKgyr7MHcLJ6453xrt4mb/
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. https://periodicos.uninove.br/riae/article/view/15202/7398
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.
https://iconline.ipleiria.pt/bitstream/10400.8/6036/1/2016_REEN_boa%20revisao%20de%20artigo.pdf
Martens, C. D. P., Pedron, C. D., & de Oliveira, J. C. (2021). Diretrizes para elaboração de artigos tecnológicos, artigos aplicados ou relatos técnicos de produção com ênfase profissional. Revista Inovação, Projetos e Tecnologias, 9(2), 143-147.
https://periodicos.uninove.br/iptec/article/view/21117
Martens, C. D. P., Scafuto, I. C., Bartholomeu Filho, J., & Zanfelicce, R. L. (2022). Como identificar possíveis produtos técnicos/tecnológicos nas dissertações e teses? Proposta de um instrumento para diagnóstico. Revista Inovação, Projetos e Tecnologias, 10(1), 1-9. https://periodicos.uninove.br/iptec/article/view/22141
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.
https://periodicos.uninove.br/riae/article/view/15568/7589
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.
https://periodicos.ufpb.br/index.php/tpa/article/view/28445
Video: Capacitação de novos avaliadores ADI
https://youtu.be/vcPnsx3FrlI
