Review Process
Scientific and professional articles
All articles undergo a preliminary editorial evaluation, the Desk Review. At this stage, manuscripts may be rejected, considered for peer review, or adjustments can be requested before the evaluation process.
In the Desk Review, the manuscript will be evaluated for:
- compliance with the CMM focus and scope;
- structure and argumentative density;
- attention to the guidelines for authors established by the CMM for submission of the manuscript;
- use of relevant and updated bibliography;
- institutional or regional endogeny;
- excessive use of visual elements (images, figures, pictures, graphs, among others);
- occurrence of plagiarism, such as: absence of (direct or indirect) citations, either in textual or visual elements. And, above all, use of other people’s concepts, theories, or research without due attribution.
For the verification of plagiarism, the CMM uses resources from DupliChecker software and searches on Google Scholar, by sampling, especially in the passages with no citations. This verification can occur again, in a greater depth, at the evaluators’ recommendation.
Remember that self-plagiarism, self-citation or redundant publication occurs when an author publishes the same text or a significant part of a text more than once. Whatever the medium or language, the repetition of parts already published will be only allowed if they are essential for the work presented. The CMM does not limit the percentage of self-citations, but recommends that authors use this resource exclusively when strictly necessary.
Institutional and regional endogeneity should be avoided by ensuring diversity of thoughts and theoretical approaches from different institutions. Therefore, CMM reserves the right to reject a submission with the aim of reducing the endogeneity of the publication. In the same sense, we will not publish more than one article by the same author, even in partnership, in the same volume (year).
The peer review system is double-blind, being carried out mainly by external evaluators.
Depending on the theme of the submitted manuscript or if a third evaluation is necessary, members of the editorial team/Editorial Board or researchers linked to the institution of the publishing company may be invited to participate in the evaluation.
The Coleção Meira Mattos’ review process consists of three evaluation points and a recommendation, detailed below according to the evaluation form completed by the evaluators:
1) Does the submission comply with the focus and scope of the journal?
The content must have the ability to encourage debate on the subject proposed in the article and be within the CMM focus and scope.
( ) Yes – proceeds to the next item.
( ) No – final recommendation is restricted to “Resubmit Elsewhere” or “Decline Submission”
2) Is the article original?
Originality is treated in an expanded manner. We are looking for articles that, in addition to not having been previously published, bring new contributions to the area of Defense and/or Military Sciences.
( ) Yes – proceeds to the next item.
( ) No – final recommendation is restricted to “Decline Submission.”
3) Is the manuscript well organized and presented, theoretically and methodologically grounded, and does it have relevant data and information?
( ) Yes – this indicates that corrections in the text are not necessary.
( ) Partially – Corrections are essential (with or without reevaluation).
The manuscript does not meet all quality parameters, but the evaluator understands that the issues presented can be remedied by means of mandatory corrections. Corrections that, if not made, make the publication unfeasible and the article must, therefore, be rejected. This item allows two recommendation options at the end of the evaluation:
- a) Revisions Required: corrections that must be made and can be approved by the editor, without returning to the evaluator. These are minor but fundamental corrections.
- b) Resubmit for Review: the evaluator wants to reevaluate the text after the mandatory corrections before the final decision, and can subsequently accept, reject or request further corrections.
( ) Suggestions for improvements
Optional suggestions for improvements, which, if not made, will not change your recommendation. This item allows two recommendation options at the end of the evaluation:
- a) Accept Submission: changes that, if not made by the author, do not compromise the quality of the text.
- b) Decline Submission: recommendations for the author(s) for future submissions. The CMM believes that the evaluation process can contribute to the development of the area even when rejecting a submission.
( ) No
The text does not meet the minimum for publication. In this case, the final recommendation is restricted to “Decline Submission”
4) Were identified or are there indications of absence of (direct or indirect) citations, use of concepts or research without due recognition, use of images, figures, charts, graphs or others that may indicate plagiarism and must be evaluated in a greater depth by the editorial team?
( ) Yes
Indicate which sections must be evaluated and, if possible, with suggestions for references. The considerations included in this field will be evaluated by the editor, who may ask the responsible for the submission for clarifications and corrections or, if the plagiarism is evident, reject the submission.
( ) No
5) Comments for the editor
Space for communication with the editor. Additions, comments, copyright, among other relevant issues can be included. The comments in this field will be evaluated by the editor, and may or may not be shared with the author(s).
Recommendation
( ) Accept Submission
Article without the need for changes, ready to proceed to the other stages of the editorial process.
( ) Revisions Required
This indicates that mandatory corrections are required, which can be approved by the editor, and there is no need to return to the evaluator. These are minor but fundamental corrections.
( ) Resubmit for Review
This indicates that mandatory corrections are required and that the article must be returned to the evaluator for approval. When choosing this recommendation, the evaluator is willing to continue with the evaluation process.
( ) Resubmit Elsewhere
For articles that, in the opinion of the evaluator, do not fully comply with the focus and scope of the journal.
( ) Decline Submission
When they do not fully comply with the focus and scope of the journal or do not meet the minimum requirements for scientific and/or methodological quality.
( ) See Comments:
If none of the above options are sufficient to express the evaluation, the evaluator can leave detailed comments to the editor. This recommendation leaves the final decision to the editor.
The main objective of peer review is to provide information to the editor so that he/she can make a decision, and it is also fundamental to help authors improve their articles to the point where they become suitable for communicating their research to the scientific community.
The final decision is at the editor’s discretion. The editor can request a letter explaining the changes made or not to the manuscript. However, the acceptance or rejection of a submission is based on the evaluations and seeks to follow the following criteria for a final decision:
| Recommendation |
| Accept |
| Mandatory corrections |
| Resubmit for evaluation |
| Submit to another journal |
| Reject |
| Recommendation | Editorial Decision |
| Evaluator 1 | Accept or accept after mandatory corrections |
| Evaluator 2 | |
| Evaluator 1 | New evaluation round after corrections (one evaluator) |
| Evaluator 2 | |
| Evaluator 1 | Third evaluation |
| Evaluator 2 | |
| Evaluator 1 | New evaluation round after corrections (two evaluators) |
| Evaluator 2 | |
| Evaluator 1 | Reject |
| Evaluator 2 | |
| Evaluator 1 | Reject |
| Evaluator 2 |
The editorial decision after the new evaluation round follows the same criteria listed above.
If a third evaluation is necessary:
| Recommendation | Editorial Decision |
| Evaluator 3 | Accept or accept after mandatory corrections |
| Evaluator 3 | Reject |
| Evaluator 3 | Reject |
Superficial, personal evaluations or evaluations in non-compliance with the Publication Ethics Statement (link) will be disregarded in the editorial process.
FLOWCHART AND AVERAGE EVALUATION TIME
Interviews
Coleção Meira Mattos conducts interviews with scholars and professionals with a wide and recognized career and who are directly involved in activities of interest for debates related to Defense, Security and Military Sciences.
The interviews are selected by the Editorial Team and aim to offer researchers in the field contact with the views of decision makers and specialists, through a fast and open communication format.
The interviewee is responsible for the information provided. The interviewee's opinion does not represent the position of Coleção Meira Mattos, or the institution.
The interviews are not reviewed by peers and, therefore, the use of their information should be used with caution in research and scientific work.
Book reviews
The evaluation of the reviews is carried out by the editor or invited external evaluator by means of a single-blind review. The following will be evaluated:
- publication time (two-year-maximum publication);
- compliance with the CMM focus and scope;
- relation with the author’s research area/theme;
- analysis consistency.
Work abstracts, superficial and/or political analyzes and texts that do not comply with our Ethics Statement will not be accepted.