Review process

Evaluation process:

1. The article, as soon as it is submitted, undergoes a process of detection of plagiarism, for the purpose of intellectual protection of contents previously published. The checks are done by means of the software Plagius.

2. Being approved in the first stage, the Scientific Editor confirms the submission after assessing both the format, characteristics and scope of the article. In cases of this nature, editors who have affinity with the subject make a preliminary evaluation, recommending its continuity (or not) in the evaluation process. The body of evaluators is composed primarily by professors from UFMG who work in teaching, research, extension and management institutions.

3. With the validation at this stage, two anonymous reviewers (double-blind review) are chosen that are aligned to the topic and do not have regional or institutional proximity with the authorship of the article. The referees receive guidelines and a evaluation form containing a set of items that must be observed in the analysis. This form contains questions that generally address the contribution of the article, its theoretical reference, the methodology adopted and discussion (see the points at the 'Assessment' section in the 'Guidelines' tab). Reviewers can add aspects that may eventually serve as of academic and scientific substrate for the evaluation process.

4. After stage 3, the Scientific Editor communicates its decision, respecting the content and decision made by reviewers. In case of discrepancy or opinions with different orientations, a third reviewer is called upon to issue a new opinion. After this decision, it is up to the Scientific Editor to accept the decision.

5. The Scientific Editor has the final decision to approve (or not) the article by sending it to the following stages until its final publication.