Políticas de avaliação

Before submitting your manuscript for evaluation, carefully read the Guidelines for Authors and make the necessary adjustments to ensure that your work complies with the criteria required by Revista Formação. If you have any questions about the journal’s requirements, please contact us at revista.formacao@upe.br.

The manuscript evaluation process consists of four stages:

Desk Review/Initial Evaluation

At this stage, the editorial team will verify whether the text complies with the formal requirements (formatting, length, citations and references, structure, and academic qualifications) and whether the content does not constitute plagiarism, using specialized software. If the text presents only a few inadequacies, revisions will be requested and the submission will remain active, with the evaluation resuming after the revised version is submitted. If the text presents numerous inadequacies or if two thirds of its content are found not to be original (in cases of plagiarism or self-plagiarism), it will be rejected; in the former case, the author may make a new submission after fully addressing the requested revisions.

Scope and Scientific Merit Analysis

In the second stage, the associate editor will evaluate whether the article is aligned with the journal’s focus and scope; the scientific merit of the text will then be assessed. If the manuscript meets the minimum standards of scientific rigor, it will proceed to peer review. If the manuscript falls outside the journal’s focus and scope and/or does not demonstrate the required scientific rigor, the associate editor will reject the submission.

Peer Review

Once the criteria of stages 1 and 2 have been met, the associate editor will send the article for peer review by specialists in the area addressed by the manuscript. Revista Formação uses double-anonymous peer review, in which authors and reviewers remain anonymous, and neither the manuscript nor the review report contains any identifying information regarding authorship. Reviewers may recommend one of three editorial decisions: accept, reject, or mandatory revisions. At least two concurring reviews are required for this stage to be completed; if two reviews are conflicting, the manuscript will therefore be sent to a third reviewer.

Editor’s Decision

In the fourth stage, the associate editor responsible for the submission will read the peer reviews and assess both their content and their recommendations for editorial decision. The editor may accept or disregard the reviewers’ recommendations and then decide on one of three possible outcomes: acceptance for publication, rejection, or a request for mandatory revisions.

In the case of revisions, if the reviewers are available, they may reassess the manuscript and indicate whether the requested changes have been adequately addressed; if they are unavailable, the editor may evaluate these issues directly. In all cases, the editor is responsible for the final decision and has the authority to depart from the peer reviewers’ recommendations, provided that the author is given the corresponding justification, always based on the principles of good editorial practice and scientific ethics.

If the author does not agree with the Editor’s Decision, they may request a reconsideration of the decision. The Editorial Board will then review the author’s questions and issue a definitive opinion in response to the points raised.