O Processo Editorial nos Periódicos e Dicas para a Publicação
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.7769/gesec.v5i2.307Palavras-chave:
Processo Editorial, Publicação em Periódico, Revisores, Editores, Periódicos Científicos.Resumo
Muitos autores e, especialmente, os menos experientes e estudantes de doutorado, veem o processo editorial e a publicação como uma caixa-preta cheia de mistérios e misticismos. Neste artigo analisamos e discutimos o processo editorial. Entender o processo nas suas etapas e como interagir com revisores e editores ajudará os autores a organizar, escrever e trabalhar as suas pesquisas para aumentar a probabilidade de ter os artigos aceitos para publicação. Descrevemos o processo editorial e apresentamos algumas sugestões para melhor navegar no processo – algumas sugestões são relativamente óbvias e outras, sujeitas a maiores doses de subjetividade.
DOI: 10.7769/gesec.v5i2.307
Downloads
Referências
Acedo, F., Barroso, C., Casanueva, C. & Galán, J. (2006). Co-authorship in management and organizational studies: An empirical and network analysis. Journal of Management Studies, 43(5), 957-983. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2006.00625.x
Ahlstrom, D. (2010). Clearing the first hurdle as the Asia Pacific Journal of Management. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 27(2), 171-177. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10490-010-9202-z
Armstrong, J. (1997). Peer review for journals: Evidence on quality control, fairness, and innovation. Science and Engineering Ethics, 3(1), 63-84. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-997-0017-3
Barabási, A.; Jeong, H.; Néda, Z.; Ravasz, E.; Schubert, A. & Vicsek, T. (2002). Evolution of the social network of scientific collaborations. Physica A, 311(3), 590-614. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-4371(02)00736-7
Barnett, A.; Ault, R. & Kaserman, D. (1988). The rising incidence of co-authorship in Economics: Further evidence. The review of Economics and Statistics, 70(3), 539-543. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/1926798
Bedeian, A. (2004). Peer review and the social construction of knowledge in the management discipline. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 3(2), 198-216. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5465/amle.2004.13500489
Bedeian, A. (2003). The manuscript review process: The proper roles of authors, referees, and editors. Journal of Management Inquiry, 12(4), 331-338. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1056492603258974
Bertero, C. (2007). Editorial. Revista de Administração de Empresas – eletrônica, 6(1), 1-2. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1590/S0034-75902007000200001
Beyer, J., Chanove, R. & Fox, W. (1995). The review process and the fates of manuscripts submitted to the AMJ. Academy of Management Journal, 38(5), 1219-1260. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5465/256856
Blackburn, J. & Hakel, M. (2006). An examination of sources of peer-review bias. Psychological Science, 17(5), 378-382. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01715.x
Braz, J. (2013). Da submissão à publicação: Como trabalhamos com o seu manuscrito. Journal of the American Chemical Society, 24(6), 891-892.
Byrne, D. (2000). Common reasons for rejecting manuscripts at medical journals: A survey of editors and peer reviewers. Science Editor, 23(2), 39-44.
Craig, J. (2010). Desk rejection: How to avoid being hit by a returning boomerang. Family Business Review, 23(4), 306-309. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0894486510386024
Dahdouh-Guebas, F., Ahimbisibwe, J., Van Moll, R., & Koedam, N. (2003). Neo-colonial science by the most industrialised upon the least developed countries in peer-reviewed publishing. Scientometrics, 56(3), 329-343. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022374703178
De Meis, L., Velloso, A., Lannes, D., Carmo, M., & De Meis, C. (2003). The growing competition in Brazilian science: rites of passage, stress and burnout. Brazilian Journal of Medical and Biological Research, 36(9), 1135-1141. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1590/S0100-879X2003000900001
Diniz, E. (2013). Editorial. Revista de Administração de Empresas, 53(1), 1-2. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1590/S0034-75902012000200001
Elson, P. & Broudard, F. (2012). Advice for new authors on the submission of articles. Canadian Journal of Nonprofit and Social Economy Research, 3(1), 79–91. DOI: https://doi.org/10.22230/cjnser.2012v3n1a112
Ferreira, M. (2013a). Comentário editorial: A pesquisa e a estruturação do artigo acadêmico em Administração. Revista Ibero Americana de Estratégia, 12(2), 1-11. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5585/riae.v12i2.2034
Ferreira, M. (2013b). Comentário editorial: O processo editorial: Da submissão à rejeição (ou aceite). Revista Ibero Americana de Estratégia, 12(3), 1-11. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5585/riae.v12i3.2042
Fisk, D. & Fogg, L. (1990). But the reviewers are making different criticisms of my paper. American Psychologist, 45, 591-598. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.45.5.591
Frey, B. (2003). Publishing as prostitution? Choosing between one's own ideas and academic success. Public Choice, 116(1-2), 205-223. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024208701874
Gans, J. & Shepherd, G. (1994). How are the mighty fallen: Rejected classic articles by leading economists. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 8(1), 165-179. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.8.1.165
Geletkanycz, M. & Tepper, B. (2012). Publishing in AMJ – part 6: Discussing the implications. Academy of Management Journal, 55(2), 256-260. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2012.4002
George, G. (2014). Rethinking management scholarship. Academy of Management Journal, 57(1), 1-6. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2014.4001
Gondim, S. (2004). A face oculta do parecerista: Discussões éticas sobre o processo de avaliação de mérito de trabalhos científicos. Organizações e Sociedade, 11(31), 195-199.
Grant, A. & Pollock, T. (2011). Publishing in AMJ – Part 3: Setting the hook. Academy of Management Journal, 54(5), 873-879. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2011.4000
Gray, T. (2005). Publish & flourish: Become a prolific scholar. New Mexico, Las Cruces, Teaching Academy, New Mexico State University.
Harzing, A. & Metz, I. (2013). Practicing what we preach. Management International Review, 53(2), 169-187. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11575-011-0124-x
Kirschbaum, C. & Mascarenhas, A. (2009). Nos limites da autonomia: Reflexões sobre o modelo brasileiro de “blind review”. Revista de Administração de Empresas - eletrônica, 8(1), Art. 5. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1590/S1676-56482009000100006
Levy, M. & Grewal, D. (2007). Publishing perspectives from the editors. Journal of Retailing, 83(3), 247-252. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretai.2007.06.001
Mascarenhas, A., Zambaldi, F. & de Moraes, E. (2011). Rigor, relevância e desafios da academia em Administração: Tensões entre pesquisa e formação profissional. Revista de Administração de Empresas, 51(3), 265-279. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1590/S0034-75902011000300007
Miller, C. (2006). Peer review in the organizational and management sciences: Prevalence and effects of reviewer hostility, bias, and dissensus. Academy of Management Journal, 49(3), 425-431. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2006.21794661
Moody, J. (2004). The structure of a social science collaboration network: Disciplinary cohesion from 1963 to 1999. American Sociological Review, 69(2), 213-238. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/000312240406900204
Pinho, J. (2005). Brevíssimo manual do editor: Considerações sobre submissão e avaliação de artigos, o papel dos pareceristas e do editor de revistas científicas. Organizações e Sociedade, 12(34), 169-173.
Radford, D., Smillie, L., Wilson, R., & Grace, A. (1999). Scientific publishing: The criteria used by editors of scientific dental journals in the assessment of manuscripts submitted for publication. British Dental Journal, 187(7), 376-379. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bdj.bdj0284a
Raelin, J. (2008). Refereeing the game of peer review. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 7(1), 124-129. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5465/amle.2008.31413869
Ragins, B. (2012). Reflections on the craft of clear writing. Academy of Management Review, 37(4), 493-501. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2012.0165
Reuber, A. (2010). Strengthening your literature review. Family Business Review, 23(2), 105-108. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0894486510368259
Rutledge, R. & Karim, K. (2009). Determinants of coauthorship for the most productive authors of accounting literature. Journal of Education for Business, 84(3), 130-134. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3200/JOEB.84.3.130-134
Rynes, S., Hillman, A., Ireland, R., Kirkman, B., Law, K., Miller, C., Rajagopalan N., & Shapiro, D. (2005). Everything you've always wanted to know about AMJ (but may have been afraid to ask). Academy of Management Journal, 48(5), 732-737. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2005.28563879
Serra, F., Fiates, G. & Ferreira, M. (2008). Publicar é difícil ou faltam competências? O desafio de pesquisar e publicar em revistas científicas na visão de editores e revisores internacionais. Revista de Administração Mackenzie, 9(4), 32-55. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1590/S1678-69712008000400004
Sguissardi, V. & Silva Jr., J. (2009). Trabalho intensificado nas federais: Pós-graduação e produtivismo acadêmico. São Paulo, SP: Xamã.
Singh, J. (2003). A reviewer’s gold. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 31(3), 331-336. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0092070303031003013
Smith, L. (1998). Anonymous review and the boundaries of ‘intrinsic merit’. Journal of Information Ethics, 7(2), 54–67.
Sparrowe, R. & Mayer, K. (2011). Publishing in AMJ - part 4: Grounding hypotheses. Academy of Management Journal, 54(6), 1098-1102. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2011.4001
Starbuck, W. (2005). How much better are the most-prestigious journals? The statistics of academic publication. Organization Science, 16(2), 180-200. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1040.0107
Sugimoto, C., Larivière, V., Ni, C. & Cronin, B. (2013). Journal acceptance rates: A cross-disciplinary analysis of variability and relationships with journal measures. Journal of Informetrics, 7(4), 897-906. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2013.08.007
Swanson, E. (2004). Publishing in the majors: A comparison of Accounting, Finance, Management and Marketing. Contemporary Accounting Research, 21(1), 223-255. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1506/RCKM-13FM-GK0E-3W50
Tsang, E. & Frey, B. (2007). The as-is journal review process: Let authors own their ideas. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 6(1), 128-136. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5465/amle.2007.24401710
Zhang, Y. & Shaw, J. (2012). Publishing in AMJ - part 5: Crafting the methods and results. Academy of Management Journal, 55(1), 8-12. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2012.4001
Downloads
Publicado
Como Citar
Edição
Seção
Licença
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
• 1. The author(s) authorize the publication of the article in the journal.
• 2. The author(s) ensure that the contribution is original and unpublished and is not being evaluated in other journal(s).
• 3. The journal is not responsible for the opinions, ideas and concepts expressed in the texts because they are the sole responsibility of the author(s).
• 4. The publishers reserve the right to make adjustments and textual adaptation to the norms of APA.
• 5. Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
• 6. Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access) at http://opcit.eprints.org/oacitation-biblio.html