Evaluation process

 

The evaluation of articles submitted to the Journal involves the following stages:

 

All submissions undergo a preliminary evaluation conducted by the editorial team of the Journal Office to verify compliance with the mandatory formal requirements established by the Editorial Board. These are listed in the “Submission Requirements” and “Author Guidelines” sections, including the alignment of the manuscript with the thematic and methodological scope of the Journal, as described in the “Editorial Scope.”

 

Articles that do not meet these requirements may be summarily "rejected" or, as applicable, returned to the authors with the necessary information to perform the appropriate adjustments, should there be interest in continuing the evaluation process.

 

Therefore, in order to expedite the process, a detailed verification of all guidelines prior to submission is highly recommended. Following the article's submission, it is recommended that all communication be conducted through the OJS platform.

 

 

Once the requirements of the preliminary stage are fulfilled, the double-blind peer review process begins, through which the identity of both authors and reviewers is kept strictly confidential.

 

The editorial team is responsible for maintaining anonymity between the parties to guarantee impartiality and objectivity throughout the process, as well as mediating the adjustment of any potentially offensive comments.

 

The manuscript is submitted simultaneously for analysis by two external peer reviewers of recognized expertise in the field, in order to certify the quality of the article's scholarly legal contribution, especially considering: a) relevance and alignment of the theme; b) originality and pertinence of the research problem; c) methodological clarity and logical structure of the text; d) technical rigor and coherence of the legal argumentation.

 

Reviewers may suggest four types of decisions: a) accept; b) minor revision (accept pending minor corrections); c) major revision (accept pending substantial corrections); or d) reject; in accordance with the criteria established in an objective form, available at: https://revista.trf3.jus.br/index.php/rtrf3/pt_BR/libraryFiles/downloadPublic/4.

 

In the event of a tie or major divergence in the recommendations, the article is submitted to a third reviewer or a member of the Editorial Board for a tie-breaking evaluation to assist in making the final editorial decision.

 

The general deadlines established for reviewers are as follows: one week to accept the review invitation; subsequently, an additional four weeks to conduct the evaluation. Once this period has elapsed, the editorial team requests the submission within two weeks, unless an extension is requested by the reviewer. If the evaluation is not submitted within this timeframe, it is at the editorial team's discretion to grant a new extension or replace the reviewer, according to the journal's demands.

 

Following the initial anonymous evaluation, authors and reviewers may be offered the option to disclose their identities for optional interaction aimed at refining the article. This interest must be reciprocal, expressly registered in the respective submission forms by the author, and in the evaluation forms by the reviewers.

 

 

Upon receipt of the reviews, the material is reviewed by the editorial team, and the suggestions are forwarded to the authors for their awareness and action, in accordance with the agreed schedule. As a rule, up to thirty days are granted for formal adjustments, and up to sixty days for more significant revisions. These deadlines are subject to extension at the discretion of the editorial team.

 

Following the reviews, all textual corrections must be performed using the “track changes” tool in the Microsoft Word text editor to facilitate the re-evaluation of the corrected text. Authors may disagree with the suggestions, provided they supply a specific justification.

 

Upon receipt of the revised text, the editorial team may, if necessary, resubmit the article to the same reviewers from the previous stage or to others before the final decision of approval or rejection is made.

 

The final editorial decision rests with the Federal Judge Director of the Journal (Editor-in-Chief) or another editor designated by him for a specific section or dossier. This decision considers the reviews issued, any statements provided by the authors, and the revisions made, while also observing academic and editorial criteria to guarantee the excellence of the publication.

 

Such criteria involve alignment with the academic guidelines for scientific journals set by the Coordination for the Improvement of Higher Education Personnel (CAPES), linked to the Ministry of Education, as well as the requirements for indexing in nationally and internationally recognized databases (such as CrossRef, OpenAlex, Scopus, Web of Science, SciELO), with a view to expanding the impact and internationalization of the published content.

 

Articles that receive a final decision of rejection cannot be resubmitted in the same version. A potential new submission must wait for a 6-month period and must include substantial changes compared to the rejected version, addressing the issues and grounds raised during the previous evaluation process.

 

 

Once approved, articles are forwarded to the final stage of layout, proofreading, and desktop publishing by the editorial team of the Journal Office for proper adaptation to the styles of the graphic design and the Journal's editorial standards.

 

The final corrected text is sent to the authors for validation prior to publication. During this validation, no additions are permitted, except in exceptional and duly justified cases.

 

It is not possible to establish an estimated deadline for the approval/publication of submitted articles. Occasionally, the evaluation process is not as swift as authors might desire.

 

The entire process is initiated according to the order of article submission; however, each manuscript has its own peculiarities and also depends on the feedback from external voluntary collaborators who are independent of the editorial team.

 

With the purpose of ensuring the transparency of the process, the main stages and dates of the editorial workflow are provided at the end of the articles, along with the identification of the responsible editor during that period.

 

Furthermore, at the end of the Journal's annual volume, a list containing the names of all peer reviewers who effectively participated in the evaluations during that year is disclosed.

 

Any questions regarding submission and evaluation rules may be resolved by sending a message to the following e-mail address: revista@trf3.jus.br.

 

Cases not covered by these rules will be resolved by the Federal Judge Director of the Journal (Editor-in-Chief), who may consult the Editorial Board if necessary.