Evaluation Process

All manuscripts, without exception, will be reviewed by referees, maintaining mutual anonymity (double-blind peer review).

The editorial process in the Revista Coletivo Cine-Fórum begins with the submission of the article by the authors through the Open Journal Systems (OJS) platform. After submission, the system automatically notifies the authors and the Editor-in-Chief of the new entry.

In the initial stage, called Desk Review, the editors verify whether the manuscript fits within the journal's scope, offers a relevant theoretical-empirical contribution, and complies with the required format and template. This preliminary analysis typically takes around 15 days, though it may vary depending on demand. The possible outcomes of this stage are either the rejection of the article or its approval to proceed to the next evaluation phase.

Articles approved in the Desk Review move on to peer review, using the double-blind review model, which ensures the anonymity of both authors and reviewers. At this stage, the manuscript is sent to at least two referees, who are given up to 45 days to conduct their analysis. If there are significant disagreements between reviewers, the manuscript is sent to a third evaluator.

Considering the time allocated for the Desk Review and peer review phases, the journal aims to provide initial feedback to authors within an average of three months. The evaluation is based on standardized criteria, which include: the relevance of the article, textual structure, coherence between introduction and problematization, the quality of the theoretical framework, rigor in research methods and techniques, consistency in the analysis and discussion of data, and the quality of the conclusions.

If both reviewers provide negative evaluations, the article is automatically rejected, and the authors are duly notified. When mandatory corrections are required, authors have up to 15 days to submit them. The revised version is re-evaluated by the reviewers and may undergo a second round of revisions if necessary. If the corrections are deemed unsatisfactory, the article is rejected.

Upon final approval, the Editor-in-Chief notifies the authors via the system, and the manuscript enters the editing and production process, which takes approximately one month. Once the issue is published, authors and other members receive an email with a link to access the publication.

ALL ARTICLES ARE CHECKED FOR PLAGIARISM USING SPECIALIZED SOFTWARE. IN CASE OF PLAGIARISM, THE ARTICLE IS AUTOMATICALLY REJECTED AND REMOVED FROM THE REVIEW PROCESS.

 

Evaluation Form

ARTICLE RELEVANCE

• Does the article present novelty or scientific relevance (theme, theory, method, result)?
• Does the article address theoretical or empirical elements related to the Humanities area?

TEXTUAL STRUCTURE

• Do the title, abstract, and keywords adequately represent the article as a whole?

INTRODUCTION AND PROBLEMATIZATION

• Provide a brief evaluation of the introduction, problematization, and the work’s objective.

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

• Does the article include the state of the art on the subject and relevant works on the theme?

RESEARCH METHODS AND TECHNIQUES

• Evaluate whether the methods and research techniques used allowed for consistent results.

DATA ANALYSIS AND RESULTS DISCUSSION

• Is the data analysis consistent, and is the discussion of results appropriate?

CONCLUSION OR FINAL REMARKS

• Are the conclusion or final remarks coherent with the proposed problem and objective? Do they adequately address the various sections of the article?

GENERAL EVALUATION

• If necessary, provide suggestions for improving the article in terms of:
  (a) Content (abstract, introduction, theoretical framework, research methods, research results, analysis and discussion of results, and final considerations—key conclusions, study limitations, and recommendations for future studies);
  (b) Form (structure, language, standards).

FINAL RECOMMENDATION
Final Decision:

• Approved (   )
• Mandatory Corrections (   )
• Rejected (   )