Editorial Policies

Focus and Scope

Mission: "The mission of the Brazilian Journal of Management - ReA UFSM is to publish empirical research that tests, expands or builds management theory and contributes to management practice. To be published in ReA UFSM, a manuscript should bring relevant theoretical and empirical contributions and highlight their significance to the field of management".

Objective: "To contribute to the development and dissemination of scientific knowledge of Management by publishing on electronic media, conducting empirical tests of national and international origin in order to promote academic debate, and present management practices that are relevant and applied to the organizational reality".

Target audience: The REA UFSM has as target audience the entire academic-scientific community belonging to national and international institutions related to the area of Management.

Article submission: The REA UFSM is a quarterly published journal open to all themes and empirical essays of researchers from the area of Management and national and international institutions. It aims to promote academic debate and present management practices that are relevant and applied to the organizational reality. Special editions may occasionally be published.

The journal is published on electronic media and, every so often, printed to facilitate dissemination and distribution in the academic field. The articles published in the journal must be unpublished (not yet published in another journal), although previous presentations and publications in scientific congresses is permitted.

 

Section Policies

Artigos

Utilize esta seção para a submissão de artigos

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed
 

Peer Review Process

Articles submitted to the Brazilian Journal of Management will be evaluated in two stages:

1) Preliminary assessment by the editor, who examines the adequacy of the work regarding the editorial policy of the journal;

2) Evaluation in the double blind review system by ad hoc reviewers to ensure the credibility of the journal and impartiality of the evaluation. In case of divergent evaluations by peers, a new evaluator will carry out a third evaluation.

Articles submitted to REA UFSM are evaluated through a standard form in accordance with the following criteria: contribution to the area of Management, originality, scientific rigor, consistent structure, clarity, appropriateness of the title to the content of the work, if the summary presents the content of the article, clarity in the presentation of the objectives, relevance of the theoretical reference, method clearly defined and consistent with the objectives of article, clear and objective presentation of the results, interpretation of results adequately supported by the theoretical reference, conclusion described clearly and objectively and based on the results found.

3) The articles assessed may be accepted, accepted with changes, sent again for evaluation, and rejected.

The Editorial Flow, as previously described, is shown in the following figure.

 

Publication Frequency

 

The Brazilian Journal of Management is an online periodical quarterly published.


 

Open Access Policy

This journal offers immediate free access to its content, following the principle that providing free scientific knowledge to the public provides greater global democratization of knowledge.

 

Archiving

This journal utilizes the LOCKSS system to create a distributed archiving system among participating libraries and permits those libraries to create permanent archives of the journal for purposes of preservation and restoration. More...

 

Brazilian Journal of Management - ReA UFSM

The ReA is an academic-scientific journal of Management (CNPq Knowledge Area: 6.02.00.00-6). The Department of Management Sciences of the Center for Social and Human Sciences of the Federal University of Santa Maria publishes the electronic journal, which was created in 2008.

The ReA was born with the purpose of strengthening and consolidating developed academic activities. It is based on the institutional credibility of Federal University of Santa Maria, which is an institution of superior education created over 50 years ago and considered one of the most important universities in the country in terms of publications with international impact.

With an editorial team of the highest quality and credibility, we seek to build a nationally renowned journal that meets academic and business expectations while making an effective contribution to the Brazilian editorial scene.

 

Indexing

ReA - UFSM is indexed in the following databases and directories:

DOAJ - Directory of Open Access Journals - http://www.doaj.org/

EBSCO - http://www.ebscohost.com/

Latindex - http://www.latindex.unam.mx/

Portal Spell - http://www.spell.org.br/

Redalyc - http://redalyc.uaemex.mx/

Sumários.org - http://www.sumarios.org/

 

1. Questions concerning the Publication and Authorship

- List of references and funding

Authors should list and cite appropriately, in accordance with the instructions provided in a specific page, the works that formed the basis for the development of their research. Furthermore, they should provide information, if applicable, on the sources of research funding, as an acknowledgement at the end of the article or in a footnote at the beginning.

- Plagiarism and fraudulent data

The authors should state that the articles are their own work, and that any third party material used is referenced and used in a legitimate way. Plagiarism, falsification or fabrication of data will not be allowed.

- Publication of the same research in more than one journal

The authors should state that the articles submitted for evaluation and their essential content are original and are not under evaluation by another publication.

 

2. Authors’ responsibilities

- Authors must ensure that all data presented in the article are real and authentic

- All authors must have contributed significantly to the development of the study

The authors included in the article should have contributed significantly to the development of the work, and it is not permitted to include additional authors after acceptance of the article.

- All authors should provide, where necessary, corrections or retractions of mistakes

- Authors must ensure that research, when appropriate, has passed the approval of the relevant body (e.g. the Ethics Committee on Research). (ANPAD, 2010)

- Authors may be invited to be evaluators in the journal’s peer review process

- If the authors are successful in publishing an article in ReA UFSM, they may be called to review an article for the magazine (ANPAD, 2010).

If the authors are asked to act in this role, they must do so with dedication, promptness and scientific seriousness, thereby contributing to the improvement of the article.

 

3. The peer review process and Reviewer’ Responsibilities

Reviewers and their Responsibilities

Reviewers should refuse to make assessments for which they do not feel qualified. They should only agree to review a manuscript if they:

- possess adequate knowledge of the subject to conduct a proper review

- can meet the deadline

“Meeting the return date thus agreed is a question of ethics, respect and responsibility of the reviewer function” (ANPAD, 2010).

- Reviewers should have no conflict of interest with the research, the authors and / or funders of research being assessed

- Evaluators should declare potential conflicts of interest (personal, financial, intellectual, professional, political or religious) to the ReA UFSM editorial team to better align the assessments

- As it is a double-blind review process, evaluators should inform the editor if the author's identity is known to them

- Evaluators should not use or misappropriate the knowledge acquired during the process of evaluating articles

- The reviewed articles must be treated confidentially. Reviewers should respect the confidentiality of the peer review and should not disclose any details of a manuscript or its revision, during or after the evaluation process (COPE, 2013).

Reviews:

- Must be objective and constructive, refraining from hostility and avoiding personally defamatory or derogatory comments (COPE, 2013)

- The evaluator must indicate the flaws that can be corrected, indicating what should be done to that end

"The reviewer should always evaluate the cost-benefit of each requested change in terms of the effective improvement in the quality of the manuscript" (ANPAD, 2010).

- Evaluators should suggest relevant references to studies that were not cited, where scientifically relevant to the article and / or its reformulation

- Evaluators should seek to indicate any likely changes in the first revision of the article, avoiding new recommendations when the reworked item is returned

4. Editorial responsibilities

The editors of ReA UFSM undertake wherever possible (based on COPE, 2013):

- to meet the needs of readers and authors

- constantly improve the journal

- ensure the quality of the material they publish

- promote freedom of expression

- maintain the integrity of academic record

- preclude business needs from compromising the intellectual standards

- publish corrections, clarifications, retractions and apologies when needed

The editors will strive to maintain the quality and relevance of the publication, which includes ensuring that the evaluation of submitted papers is objective, fair and conducted in accordance with the norms and standards of scientific research in the field of Administration.

The editors, through the selection of evaluators, will seek to promote a competent and impartial assessment of submitted articles.

The editors will seek reviewers who do not belong to the same institution as the authors and are not co-authors of the same. They will also seek to forward submissions to reviewers with qualifications compatible with the work to be assessed (ANPAD, 2010).

 

The editors of ReA UFSM have full responsibility and authority to reject / accept articles

The final decision to accept or reject articles rests with the publishers, who consider the quality, originality, relevance and adherence to ReA UFSM editorial line.

This decision may possibly counteract the recommendations identified by the evaluators, as long as it is duly substantiated. "The editor is not hostage to the opinions and views that come, but if he needs to counter them, he must act with a very clear ethics and insight" (ANPAD, 2010).

The editor should have no conflict of interest in relation to articles he or she rejects / accepts.

If a conflict of interest is identified, the editor will pass the responsibility for the decision to a member of the editorial committee who is free of such a conflict.

The editors should only accept an article if they are reasonably certain about that decision.

Editors should publish corrections when they find some error in the publication.

Editors should preserve the anonymity of the evaluators.

All those involved in the evaluation process must ensure the confidential treatment of submitted manuscripts.

Editors must not use or misappropriate the knowledge acquired during the evaluation process of the articles.

 

5. Issues of Ethics in Publishing

Monitoring / safeguarding of the publication’s ethics by the Editorial Board

The Editorial Board of ReA UFSM is responsible for monitoring compliance with this code of ethics. Furthermore, it should be aware of changes in patterns of scientific publishing in the area of Administration.

Guidelines for retraction of articles (Based on COPE, 2013)

The editors of ReA UFSM may consider the retraction of an article if:

- there is clear evidence that the results are not reliable, whether as a result of misconduct (e.g. data fabrication) or honest error (e.g. miscalculation or experimental error)

- the findings were published previously elsewhere without proper references, permission or justification (i.e. cases of redundant publication)

- there is plagiarism

- the article reports unethical research

Notices of retraction should mention the reasons and bases for retraction (to distinguish misconduct cases from those of honest mistakes) and should also specify who is retracting the article. They should be published in all versions of the journal (print and electronic) and should include the title of the article and its respective authors.

 

Maintaining the integrity of the academic record (based on COPE, 2013)

Upon recognizing the publication of any misleading statement or distorted account, the Editorial Board must promptly correct it and give the correction due prominence in the journal.

If, after appropriate investigation, it is proved that an item is fraudulent, the latter should be retracted. The retraction must be clearly identifiable to readers and indexing systems.

References

 

ANPAD. ANPAD Manual of Practice of Scientific Publication. National Association of Graduate Studies and Research in Management, Rio de Janeiro, 2010. Available at: <http://www.anpad.org.br/diversos/boas_praticas.pdf>. Access on 22 sept. 2015.

COPE. Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors. Committee on Publication Ethics, 2013. Available at: <http://publicationethics.org/files/Code_of_conduct_for_journal_editors_1.pdf>. Access on 22 sept. 2015.

 

Code of Ethics

This Code of Ethics aims to contribute to the quality of the Brazilian Journal of Management in order to ensure its reliability for publishers, authors, reviewers, and readers. The code is based on the Manual of Good Practice (NAPRM, 2010), the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE, 2013), as well as consolidated editorial practices of Management.

1. Publication and Authorship Issues

- List of references and funding

The authors should appropriately list and cite, according to the instructions given in a specific page, the works that served as the basis for their research development. In addition, they should provide information, where and when appropriate, on the sources of research funding, in appreciation at the end of the article or in a footnote at the beginning.

- Plagiarism and fraudulent data

The authors must declare that the articles are of their own making and that any third party material that may be used is legitimately referenced and used. No plagiarism, forgery or fabrication of data is allowed.

- Publication of the same research in more than one journal

The authors must declare that articles submitted for evaluation and their essential content are unpublished and are not in the process of being evaluated by another journal.

 

2. Responsibilities of the Authors

- The authors must ensure that all the data presented in the article are real and authentic

- All authors must have contributed significantly to the development of their work

The authors included in the article should have contributed significantly to the elaboration of the paper, and authors should not be included after acceptance of the article.

- All authors must provide, when necessary, corrections or retractions of errors made

- Authors should ensure that the relevant body (eg, Research Ethics Committee) has approved the research, when applicable (NAPRM, 2010)

-The authors may be invited to be evaluators in the peer review process of the journal

- If the authors succeed in publishing an article on the REA UFSM, they can be asked to evaluate an article for the journal. (NAPRM, 2010)

If the authors are called upon to act in this role, they should do so with dedication, promptness, and scientific seriousness, contributing to the improvement of the article.

 

3. Concerning the Peer Review process and the Responsibilities of the Reviewers

Regarding the Reviewers and their responsibilities

The evaluators should refuse to perform evaluations for which they do not feel qualified. They must only agree to evaluate manuscripts if they:

- have the knowledge on the matter in order to carry out an adequate review

- can assess in a timely manner

- "Fulfilling the return date previously agreed is a matter of ethics, respect, and responsibility of the reviewer (NAPRM, 2010)"

- The evaluators must have no conflict of interest with the research, authors, and/or funders of the research being evaluated

- The evaluators must declare potential conflicts of interest (personal, financial, intellectual, professional, political or religious) in order for the REA UFSM editorial staff to better align assessments

- Since the evaluation process is double blind, the evaluators must inform the editor if they know the identity of the author(s)

- The evaluators cannot use or appropriate any knowledge gained during the evaluation process of the articles

- The articles evaluated must be treated confidentially. The reviewers must respect the confidentiality of peer review and not reveal any details of a manuscript or its revision during or after the evaluation process (COPE, 2013).

As for the reviews:

They must be objective and constructive, refraining from hostilities and avoiding any defamatory or derogatory personal comments (COPE, 2013)

- The evaluator must point out the faults that can be corrected by indicating what should be done

- "The reviewer must always evaluate the cost-effectiveness of each requested change in terms of effective improvement in manuscript quality" (NAPRM, 2010)

- The evaluators must suggest relevant work references that are not cited where scientifically appropriate for the article and/or its revision

- The evaluators must suggest all possible changes in the first revision of the article and avoid new recommendations when the article is reformulated.

4. Editorial Responsibilities

The editors of REA UFSM commit to, whenever possible (based on COPE, 2013):

- meeting the needs of readers and authors

- constantly improving the journal

- ensuring the quality of the published material

- defending freedom of speech

- maintaining the integrity of the academic work

- preventing business needs to compromise intellectual standards

- publishing corrections, clarifications, retractions, and apologies when necessary.

The editors strive to maintain the quality and relevance of the publication, which includes ensuring that the evaluation of the submitted papers is objective, fair, and conducted according to the norms and standards of scientific research in the area of Management.

The editors, through selected evaluators, will seek to promote a competent and impartial evaluation of articles.

Editors will seek reviewers who are not from the same institution as the authors of the article and are not co-authors of such authors. They will also seek to forward submissions to reviewers with qualifications compatible with the work to be evaluated (NAPRM, 2010).

The editors of REA UFSM have full responsibility and authority to reject/accept an article

The final decision to accept or reject articles belongs to the editors while considering the quality, originality, relevance, and their adherence to the editorial line of REA UFSM.

This decision may eventually counteract the recommendations identified by the evaluators, as long as duly justified. "The editor is not a hostage of the opinions and reviews he/she receives, although if he/she needs to contradict them, do so with ethics and very clear insight" (NAPRM, 2010).

The editor must have no conflict of interest regarding the articles he/she rejects/accepts.

If the editor identifies a conflict of interest, he/she will the pass decision-making responsibility to one of the members of the editorial board, as long as the editorial committee also has no conflict of interest.

The editors must only accept an article when they are reasonably certain of their decision.

The editors must publish corrections when they find any mistake in the publication.

The editors must preserve the anonymity of the evaluators.

Everyone involved in the evaluation process must ensure the confidential treatment of the manuscripts submitted.

The editors cannot use or appropriate knowledge acquired during the article evaluation process.

 

5. Ethics Issues in Publication

Monitoring/safeguarding publication ethics by the Editorial Board

The Editorial Board of REA UFSM is responsible for monitoring compliance with this code of ethics. In addition, the board must be aware of changes in the scientific publishing standards of the area of Management.

Guidelines for retracting articles (based on COPE, 2013)

REA UFSM editors may consider retracting an article if:

- there is clear evidence that the results are unreliable, either as a result of misconduct (e.g. data processing) or by an honest mistake (e.g., miscalculation or experimental error)

- the conclusions were published previously in another place without the proper reference, permission or justification (i.e., redundant publication)

- plagiarism

- report unethical research

Withdrawal notices must state the reasons and grounds for retraction (to distinguish cases of misconduct from those of honest mistakes) and must also specify who is retracting the article. They should be published in all versions of the journal (printed and electronic) and must include the title of the article and its authors.

 

Maintaining the integrity of the academic work (based on COPE, 2013)

If any misleading statement or distorted statement is identified in the publication, it must be promptly corrected and be highlighted in the journal.

If there is proof of a fraudulent item after proper investigation, it must be retracted. The retraction must be clearly identifiable to readers and indexing systems.

References

NAPRM. NAPRM Manual of Good Practices of the Scientific Publication. National Association of Postgraduate and Research in Management, Rio de Janeiro, 2010. Available at: <http://www.anpad.org.br/diversos/boas_praticas.pdf>. Accessed on 22 Sept. 2015.

COPE. Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors. Committee on Publication Ethics, 2013. Available at: <http://publicationethics.org/files/Code_of_conduct_for_journal_editors_1.pdf>. Accessed on 22 Sept. 2015.