What do we look for in a research article?

We are pleased to announce the final issue of Direito GV Law Review for 2018. Firstly, we would like to present a flowchart of our editorial process, which summarizes our stages of evaluation.

It is important that authors know how the evaluation will be conducted and have a clear understanding of each step of the process. Thus, in this Editorial, we have decided to outline our expectations regarding research articles in order to assist authors in preparing their submissions.

In addition, we also suggest reading the first editorials of 2017 and 2018, where we presented retrospectives of the articles evaluated in the previous years. We also provided some statistics, such as submission numbers, average evaluation time, and the number of published articles (BARBIERI, 2017, 2018).

Those who wish to submit an article to the journal should first read our editorial policy carefully, in order to understand our publication guidelines and general requirements.¹ Although this is a basic step prior to submission, we receive many articles that do not adhere to these requirements.

Importantly, the articles submitted must be unpublished and original, in addition to not being under evaluation or accepted by another journal. What constitutes an unpublished and original work is discussed in the literature, and understanding varies according to the field (MIGLIOLI, 2012; GUETZKOW; LAMONT; MALLARD, 2004; STIGLER, 1955).

For Direito GV Law Review, unpublished articles are those that have not been published or made available elsewhere in any medium. Therefore, articles already published in books, other periodicals, academic networks like Researchgate or SSRN, as well as congress proceedings cannot be submitted. After all, if the article is already available, our reviewers can find the text and discover its authorship, breaking the basic rule of the double-blind peer review system.

Originality refers to the article's level of innovation and its potential to advance a specific field of knowledge. For this reason, we generally do not publish literature reviews. Despite the broadness of the notion of originality, it is essential that the article develop a new concept or theory, a new methodological approach, or a new interpretation of an existing topic.

It is also worth mentioning the good-practice guidelines adopted by the journal, which should be understood and followed by authors.² Research ethics are essential in legal academia, and every author should seek to understand and abide by them in his/her own work.

If the article passes desk review, it then goes to the peer-review stage, which follows the double-blind system. This phase not only serves the purpose of evaluating the text, but also making improvements. Although authors are not obliged to follow all the reviewers’ suggestions, it is expected that they engage with the points made, justify their choices, and clarify and strengthen their arguments in light of the reviewers’ comments. It is important to emphasize that changes to the text are no guarantee of approval. The editorial team will undertake a detailed analysis of the modifications made, bearing in mind the reviewers’ remarks. It is also important to emphasize that the journal's decisions take into account its broader place within the field, the totality of articles currently under evaluation, editorial priorities, and Qualis/Capes rules (regarding, for example, exogeny and authorship), as well as SciELO guidelines.

After acceptance, the article proceeds to copyediting, proofreading, and layout. Work then continues with dissemination of the article. Authors play an important role in raising awareness of their research within their community and among their peers. Simply publishing work is not our final goal: our aim is to ensure the effective dissemination of original and unpublished knowledge. For this reason, the journal has always been available via open access.

Finally, we stress that all of these rules are in place to ensure the fairness and professionalism of the editorial process, to respect the authors who put their trust in us, as well as the reviewers whose work is essential for ensuring the success of Direito G V Law Review.

• 1
  Available at: <https://direitosp.fgv.br/sites/direitosp.fgv.br/files/arquivos/revista_direito_gv_politica_editorial.pdf> Accessed 18 Oct. 2018.
• 2
  Código de boas práticas científicas (FAPESP): <http://www.fapesp.br/boaspraticas/FAPESP-Codigo_de_Boas_Praticas_Cientificas_2014.pdf>; Diretrizes (CNPq): <http://www.cnpq.br/web/guest/diretrizes>; Guidelines (COPE): <https://publicationethics.org/resources/guidelines>. Accessed 18 Oct. 2018.

REFERÊNCIAS

• BARBIERI, Catarina Helena Cortada. Editorial. Rev. Direito GV, São Paulo, v. 13, n. 1, p. 7-13, abr. 2017. Disponível em: <http://www.sdelo.br/sdelo.php?script=sd_arttext&pid=S1808-24322017000100007&lng=en&nrm=iso>. Acesso em: 18 out. 2018. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/2317-6172201701
  » http://www.sdelo.br/sdelo.php?script=sd_arttext&pid=S1808-24322017000100007&lng=en&nrm=iso» http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/2317-6172201701
• BARBIERI, Catarina Helena Cortada. Editorial. Revista Direito GV em números: balanço de 2017 e perspectivas para 2018. Rev. Direito GV, São Paulo, v. 14, n. 1, p. 7-16, abr. 2018. Disponível em: <http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1808-24322018000100007&lng-pt&nrm-iso>. Acesso em: 18 out. 2018. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/ 2317-6172201801.
  » http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1808-24322018000100007&lng-pt&nrm-iso» http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/2317-6172201801
• GUETZKOW, Joshua; LAMONT, Michèle; MALLARD Grégoire. What is originality in the humanities and the social sciences? American Sociological Review, v. 69 n. 2, p. 190-212, abr. 2004. Disponível em: <https://www.jstor.org/stable/3593084>. Acesso em: 18 out. 2018. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 000312240406900203.
  » https://www.jstor.org/stable/3593084» https://doi.org/10.1177/000312240406900203
• MIGLIOLI, Sara. Originalidade e ineditismo como requisitos de submissão aos periódicos científicos em Ciência da Informação, Liinc em Revista, Rio de Janeiro, v. 8, n. 2, p. 378-388, set. 2012. Disponível em: <http://revista.ibict.br/liinc/article/view/3372>. Acesso em: 18 out. 2018. https://doi.org/10.18617/liinc.v8i2.493
  » http://revista.ibict.br/liinc/article/view/3372» https://doi.org/10.18617/liinc.v8i2.493
• STIGLER, George. The nature and role of originality in scientific progress. Economica New Series, v. 22, n. 88, nov. 1955, p. 293-302. Disponível em: <www.jstor.org/stable/2551184>. Acesso em: 18 out. 2018. https://doi.org/10.2307/2551184
  » www.jstor.org/stable/2551184» https://doi.org/10.2307/2551184

Publication Dates

• Publication in this collection
  Sep-Dec 2018