GUIDELINES FOR THE REVIEWERS
This section aims to guide the referees in their evaluation process of the articles.
The opinion of an evaluator aims to help in the selection of articles accepted for publication in the journal and to contribute with the authors of the article to improve the quality of their publication. It is important to note that the reviewers/evaluators are volunteers registered with the journal who have chosen to carry out this task, aware that there will be no remuneration for their evaluation. They receive a certificate for each article they evaluate. There are some important observations that the reviewer needs to elucidate:
1) Does the article meet the journal's guidelines and policies?
2) Does it comply with the journal's formatting requirements?
3) Is the text well referenced (bibliography)?
4) Do spelling and grammar meet the requirements of the language to which the article has been submitted?
5) Is the topic relevant (scientific, social and institutional)?
6) Will the article contribute to the theme presented?
7) Is there scientific materiality in the research conducted?
8) Is the text methodologically rigorous?
9) Is the text original?
10) Is there evidence and objectivity in the article?
These 10 steps should help your analysis to be objective and impartial, contributing to the quality of the articles published here. It is important that your opinion takes a position, and defines the next steps, both for the authors and for the editors of the journal. That is why it is important, when you receive the article, to check if the topic is in your area of work or study. Try to clearly state the strengths and weaknesses of the article in order to assist in the selection of accepted and rejected articles. Indicate if the shortcomings of the article can be easily solved in a matter of hours of work or if it would take several weeks. It is important to approach the article with a critical eye, but with an open mind, to read it willing to learn from the authors' experience. An opinion with constructive criticism is much more useful to the authors than an opinion extolling the wonders of the work done. Also, avoid letting your personal opinions and tastes influence your review too much. You have the right to criticize the approach taken, there is no doubt, but remember that the plurality of ideas and approaches is extremely salutary. A good review points out both formal problems in the article (structural organization, quality of grammar and spelling, clarity of the text) and content problems (scientific, technological, philosophical, cultural issues, etc.). Thus, it is good to start with more in-depth comments and suggestions and end with a list of occasional suggestions for spelling, grammar and formatting corrections.