Before submitting your manuscript, you should try to answer the following questions:
- Does the manuscript fall within the scope of the journal?
- Is the text clear, concise and accessible?
- Does the title, abstract and keywords reveal the key points of your manuscript, and does it not exceed the word limit?
- Do you have written authorizations for the reproduction of figures and pictures that are under copyright?
- The text size conforms to that recommended by Herança?
- Does the Identification Form include the name and affiliation of all authors?
- It is formatted according to the “norms for authors”?
- Are all references made in the body of the text, captions and notes included in your bibliographic references?
- Does your manuscript meet all anonymization guidelines in accordance with our journal's peer review policy?
The writing of a scientific article is the culmination of continuous and hard intellectual work. Sometimes the authors even have all the work organized, know what they want to address, have the data to work with, but they do not know how to report it in a coherent and organized text.
It all comes from the author’s willingness to learn.
The basis of any scientific work must be ethics. The work done so far should be recognized and not plagiarized. All criticism must be accepted.
The wording must be clear and without grammatical errors. Any article submitted for review is reviewed. Thus, the writing must be appropriate to the situation. For example, if it is to be published in a scientific journal, the methodology must be addressed, the means used; in the end, the article must provide all the indications so that it can be reproduced by another author. If it is to be presented at a congress or a specialized journal, the contents and language must be adapted. In short, the language used must be suitable for the purpose.
The scientific article reflects all the work done. All phases must be recorded, all documentation generated must be organized and easy to consult. It is this organized register that will allow the article to be written naturally and without losing its original focus.
As a rule, each scientific journal has its structure defined and it is easy to adapt the study to this structure.
THE ABSTRACT: the abstract must contain information that stimulates interest in the reader (s) to read it in full. The summary is not to introduce the topic or the description of the activities carried out. It should be enlightening in itself, making no references to the body of the work or containing citations or bibliographic references. Abbreviations and symbols should be avoided. The summary should indicate the problem, justify why it is a problem, a sentence that presents the solution to the problem and captures the attention of the reader (s). Finally, it should explain how the solution is a solution.
THE INTRODUCTION: in a first phase, you should try to explain the importance of the theme. Then you should look in the literature if there is something that answers the starting point and what is currently on the topic. It must then be seen what solutions are currently valid for the problem itself. Based on this, you should explain what is the solution presented and, finally, the conclusion must coincide with the justification of the theme.
BODY OF THE WORK: in the body of the work, the problem to be solved must be described; why the situation is considered relevant and why it is important to resolve it. Then, the solution should be described, what was done to solve the problem, describing the methodology used.
After the described methodology, the results must be presented, proving what was previously described. One should check what already exists and compare it with the results obtained, showing the contribution of the article.
CONCLUSION: the conclusions drawn with the study must be presented. The conclusion must respond to the topic addressed in the introduction. It is necessary to verify what the literature has concluded and what the study allows to conclude; whether it meets or disputes what already exists. At this stage, the limitations that were identified when developing the study should be presented. The conclusion must be visible even to those who have not read the body of the article. When someone is interested in an article, they read the title, the summary and the conclusion. If they like it, they read the body of the text.
If you use any term in the conclusion that was only used in the body of the work, the reader (s) is / are unaware. If the conclusion is stimulating, the reader (s) will have an interest in the body of the work and will want to know how they arrived at that conclusion, if they used their own software, which sample and methodology was used.
The process of evaluating articles submitted to e3 consists of two stages. The first, a preliminary evaluation by the Editor-in-Chief and the Deputy Editor, who examine the adequacy of the work to the editorial line of the journal and make the preliminary evaluation (Desk Review). The second, the assessment itself, which consists of the double-blind review system or open peer review, to be carried out by two ad hoc reviewers.
What are the reviewers looking for?
The evaluation considers, primarily, the scientific quality of the text, focusing on the following aspects:
Originality of the work;
Relevance and theoretical consistency of the text for the development of the area of knowledge;
Quality of the theoretical framework used;
Quality of writing and organization of the text;
Contribution of work to administrative knowledge and/or administrative action in organizations;
Methodology used: property, quality, level of sophistication;
Quality of data analysis and discussion (if applicable);
Conclusions: achievement, foundation and consistency.