Processo de Avaliação por Pares

The duration of the publication process begins with the submission of the article by the authors through the OJS system of the RECOCINE Journal.

• After submission, the system sends a confirmation message to the authors and, at the same time, to the Editor-in-Chief, notifying them of the new submission.

• The texts undergo the first stage, the "Desk Review," where it is verified if the article fits the journal's scope, has a theoretical-empirical contribution, and follows the indicated format. This stage lasts about 1 month, varying depending on demand, with the results being either rejection of the article or selection to continue in the evaluation process.

• Every article submitted to the RECOCINE Journal is reviewed by at least two reviewers (double-blind review). Reviewers are requested to complete their evaluations within 30 days. The double-blind peer review ensures the anonymity of both authors and reviewers.

• Considering the duration of the "Desk Review" and "Double-Blind Review" stages, with the possibility of sending to a third reviewer in case of conflicting decisions from the first two, the RECOCINE Journal aims to return an initial evaluation of the article within an average period of up to 3 months.

• Evaluations are conducted using standardized evaluation forms, with space for personalized comments, which are sent to the author(s) in case of conditional acceptance, corrections, or rejection.

• The evaluation considers: the relevance of the article, textual structure, coherence between the introduction and problem statement, relevant theoretical framework, rigorous research methods and techniques, consistent data analysis and discussion, and conclusions/final considerations.

• In case of a negative opinion from two reviewers, the article is automatically rejected.

• If the opinions are divergent, the article is sent to a third specialist.

• If mandatory corrections are required, the author is requested to make them within a maximum of 20 days. The new version of the document is again sent to the reviewers for their review.

• A second round of corrections may occur before the article is definitively accepted. Alternatively, the corrections may not be satisfactorily completed. In this last case, the article is rejected.

• If accepted, the Editor-in-Chief sends a notification to the authors through the system.

• Upon acceptance, the authors must pay the "Publication Fee" of 45 USD via PAYPAL to coletivocineforum@gmail.com, Coletivo Cine-Fórum Publishing (via the Editor-in-Chief) for the company that manages RECOCINE. After payment and submission of the receipt, as well as the submission of the English version of the article, the editing process begins, which will take approximately one month.

• When the edition is published, an email is sent with the access link to all associates.

 

ALL ARTICLES GO THROUGH ANTI-PLAGIUM SOFTWARE. IN CASE OF PLAGIARISM THE ARTICLE IS AUTOMATICALLY REFUSED AND EXCLUDED FROM THE EVALUATION PROCESS

 

Evaluation Form

  1. RELEVANCE OF THE ARTICLE
  • Does the article present novelty or scientific relevance (theme, theory, method, result)?
  • Does the article address theoretical or empirical elements in the field of Humanities?
  1. TEXTUAL STRUCTURE
  • Do the title, abstract, and keywords represent a good idea of the article as a whole?
  1. INTRODUCTION AND PROBLEM STATEMENT
  • Provide a brief assessment of the introduction, problem statement, and the work's objective.
  1. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
  • Is the state-of-the-art on the subject covered, and are relevant works on the topic used?
  1. RESEARCH METHODS AND TECHNIQUES
  • Assess whether the research methods and techniques used allowed for consistent results.
  1. DATA ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION OF RESULTS
  • Is there consistency in the data analysis, and is the discussion of the results adequate?
  1. CONCLUSION OR FINAL CONSIDERATIONS
  • Are the conclusion or final considerations coherent with the proposed problem and objective, and do they cover the various parts of the article?
  1. GENERAL EVALUATION
  • If necessary, provide suggestions for the authors to improve the article regarding: (a) Content (abstract, introduction, theoretical framework, research method, research results, analysis and discussion of results, and final considerations (main conclusions, study limitations, and recommendations for future studies); (b) Form (structure, language, standards).
  1. FINAL RECOMMENDATION
  • Final Recommendation:
  • Approved ( )
  • Mandatory corrections ( )
  • Rejected ( )