For Publishers

ISSN Assignment

The ISSN (International Standard Serial Number) is an international code used to uniquely identify serial publications. It consists of eight digits, including a check digit, and is preceded by the acronym ISSN.

The ISSN is assigned to a title by the ISSN Network and serves as a unique identifier for the publication. Publications eligible for an ISSN include, among other serials, journals, newspapers, bulletins, yearbooks, conference proceedings, publications from scientific societies, and monographic series.

The UFRB Electronic Journals Portal does not submit ISSN requests. Obtaining this identifier is the responsibility of the journal's editorial team.

In Brazil, ISSN assignment is carried out by the Brazilian ISSN Center, coordinated by the Brazilian Institute of Information in Science and Technology (IBICT).

Guidelines and application procedures are available on the Brazilian ISSN Center website.

 

 
What's New in OJS 3.5.0.1

Version OJS 3.5.0.1 has been installed for use by journals hosted on the Portal.

OJS manages the stages of journal publishing, including submission, review, editing, publication, archiving, and indexing.

Key new features

Instructional materials

Source: Adapted from the USP Journal Portal, USP Journals: what's new in version OJS 3.5.0.3. Access publication.

 
Indexers, Databases and Directories
 
Creative Commons Licenses and Licensing
 
Copyright Policy
  • Register the journal's policy in the Diadorim directory
 
Digital Preservation The Portal's journals are preserved via the
 
Digital identifiers
 
 
Good editorial practices
 
Guidelines for the editorial workflow and metadata verification

The continuous updating of publications by journals hosted on the UFRB Scientific Journals Portal, as well as adherence to scientific publishing standards and best practices, are fundamental to maintaining editorial quality and increasing the visibility of publications.

In the context of digital scientific publishing, metadata quality and consistency are essential for the correct identification, retrieval, discovery, and dissemination of scientific output. Information such as title, authorship, institutional affiliation, ORCID, abstract, keywords, funding data, references, license, and DOI contributes to the proper description of published content—including articles, book reviews, literature reviews, interviews, editorials, and other document types.

For this reason, metadata entered into the system must be carefully checked, corrected, and standardized by the editorial team prior to publication, always using the information contained in the document's final version as a reference. Although some fields may have been filled in by the authors themselves during submission, this information must be reviewed by the editorial team.

The guidelines presented below establish general procedures for tracking submissions, editorial assessment, peer review, file preparation, metadata verification, and publication. Additionally, each journal must adhere to its own editorial policy, review methods, and the specific requirements of its field of knowledge.

1. Submission and initial check

The editorial check should begin at the submission stage. Before forwarding the manuscript for assessment, the editorial team must verify whether the submission meets the minimum conditions established by the journal.

  1. Check whether the manuscript aligns with the journal's scope, sections, and accepted document types.
  2. Verify that the necessary files have been submitted and are accessible.
  3. Check whether the manuscript possesses the structure and meets the minimum requirements to proceed through the editorial workflow.
  4. Verify compliance with the author guidelines and editorial standards adopted by the journal.
  5. Check whether the basic submission metadata has been filled in and corresponds to the information provided by the authors.
  6. When the journal requires supplementary documents—such as declarations, authorizations, data files, figures, or other materials—verify that they have been correctly submitted.

2. Peer review model and anonymization

Before submission to reviewers, check which peer review model the journal uses and ensure that the files are prepared in accordance with that policy.

  • Double-blind review: the authors' identities are not revealed to the reviewers, and the reviewers' identities are not revealed to the authors.
  • Review with anonymous reviewer: the reviewers know the identity of the authors, but the authors do not know the reviewers' identities.
  • Open review: identities may be known to the parties, depending on the journal's established review policy.

For journals adopting double-blind review, carefully check the files intended for reviewers. Names, affiliations, acknowledgments, self-citations that explicitly reveal authorship, file properties, or other elements that could identify the authors must be handled in accordance with the journal's anonymization policy.

Note: anonymizing the files used for review does not mean removing authorship data from the submission's metadata. Registration details must remain in the system for use in subsequent stages of the editorial workflow.

3. Editorial screening or Desk Review

Before forwarding the submission for peer review, the Editor-in-Chief, Section Editor, or other responsible editor must conduct a preliminary editorial assessment, in accordance with the journal's organizational structure.

At this stage, it is recommended to verify:

  • alignment with the journal's aims and scope;
  • suitability regarding the document type and chosen section;
  • originality and relevance of the proposal;
  • quality and clarity of the writing;
  • manuscript structure and organization;
  • adherence to editorial guidelines;
  • minimum scientific and methodological standards for review;
  • compliance with anonymization requirements, where applicable.

Based on the editorial screening, the submission may be forwarded for peer review, returned to the authors for preliminary adjustments, or rejected at the editorial stage, depending on the policy adopted by the journal.

4. Similarity check

When stipulated by the journal's editorial policy, the submission must undergo a textual similarity check using the institutionally adopted tool.

The results must be analyzed by the editorial team within their specific context. Any passages flagged by the tool must be examined before an editorial decision is made.

5. Selection and invitation of reviewers

When a submission is sent for peer review, reviewers should be selected based on their academic and scientific expertise and the relevance of their background to the paper's subject matter.

  1. Adhere to the minimum number of reviewers established in the journal's editorial policy.
  2. Select reviewers with expertise related to the subject, methodology, or field addressed in the manuscript.
  3. Whenever possible, ensure diversity regarding the reviewers' institutional affiliations.
  4. Check for potential conflicts of interest before extending an invitation.
  5. If a reviewer declines the invitation or is unable to conduct the review, invite another specialist as necessary to comply with the journal's review policy.

6. Peer review

Reviewers must conduct an academic and scientific analysis of the manuscript in accordance with the criteria and forms established by the journal.

Aspects that may be considered during the evaluation include:

  • scientific relevance;
  • originality;
  • contribution to the field;
  • alignment with the journal's scope;
  • clarity and organization;
  • soundness of the theoretical framework;
  • methodological appropriateness and rigor;
  • appropriateness of the results analysis;
  • coherence among objectives, methodology, results, and conclusions;
  • quality and currency of references.

Review reports must be sufficiently clear and well-substantiated to support the editorial decision and guide authors regarding any necessary revisions.

Reviewers must maintain the confidentiality of manuscripts received for evaluation and disclose any potential conflicts of interest to the Editor.

7. Editorial decision following evaluation

Upon receipt of the necessary review reports, the responsible Editor is tasked with analyzing the evaluations and making an editorial decision.

Depending on the options and policies adopted by the journal, the decision may involve:

  • accepting the submission;
  • requesting revisions;
  • forwarding for a new round of review;
  • rejecting the submission.

The editorial decision must take into account the rationale presented in the review reports as well as the Editor's own analysis. The decision should not be viewed merely as a tally of favorable or unfavorable recommendations.

8. Revisions carried out by the authors

When modifications are requested, the authors must submit the revised version in accordance with the guidelines established by the journal.

Authors are advised to provide a response to the reviewers' and editors' comments, indicating the changes made to the manuscript and justifying, when necessary, any suggestions that were not incorporated.

Receipt of the revised version does not imply automatic acceptance of the submission. The Editor must evaluate the modifications made and decide whether to accept the manuscript, request further adjustments, initiate a new round of review, or reject it, as appropriate.

9. New round of review

When necessary, the revised version may be sent for a new round of review.

A new review may be considered, among other situations, when:

  • substantial modifications have been made to the manuscript;
  • significant methodological, conceptual, or analytical issues persist;
  • the authors' responses require further expert analysis;
  • reviewers have requested a re-evaluation of the corrected version;
  • there are significant disagreements justifying additional analysis.

When deemed necessary, the Editor may request an additional opinion from another expert, in accordance with the journal's editorial policies.

10. Acceptance of the submission

Following the satisfactory completion of the review process and the requested revisions, the Editor may accept the submission and forward it to the editorial preparation stages.

Scientific acceptance does not conclude the editorial process. Prior to publication, the stages of editing, production, metadata review, final file preparation, and publication verification must still be carried out.

11. Text editing

During the text editing stage, the accepted document must be prepared in accordance with the journal's guidelines and editorial standards.

At this stage, checks may be performed regarding textual and bibliographic aspects, formatting standards, information consistency, and the correspondence between the document and the metadata registered in the system.

Upon completing the text editing, correctly forward the submission to the next stage of the editorial workflow. Do not leave articles—whose text editing is already complete—stalled at this stage.

12. Metadata verification

Perform a complete verification of the metadata based on the final version approved for publication. Never omit information from the document solely to fit the metadata requirements. If an inconsistency arises, verify the correct information before making any changes.

Some fields may have been filled in by the authors during submission. This does not mean they are necessarily correct, complete, or standardized. It is the editorial team's responsibility to conduct the final verification.

12.1. Title and subtitle

  1. Enter the title in Portuguese as well as in any other languages ​​present in the document, always adhering to the approved final version.
  2. Do not use punctuation at the end of the title, unless required by its linguistic nature.
  3. Use uppercase and lowercase letters in accordance with language rules and the journal's editorial standards, avoiding the unnecessary capitalization of every word.
  4. If this is the configuration defined by the Portal, enter both the title and subtitle in the Title field, separated by a colon.
    Example: Social life: a case study

12.2. Abstract

  1. Provide the abstract in the article's primary language as well as in any other languages ​​included in the final version of the document.
  2. Verify that each abstract has been entered in the correct language within the system.
  3. Avoid using bold, italics, or other unnecessary formatting in the fields designated for the Abstract, *Resumen*, or equivalents.

12.3. Authors and co-authors

  1. Verify that all authors listed in the final version are correctly registered in the system and appear in the correct order.
  2. The Name field must contain the first name and middle name(s), if applicable, while the Surname field must be filled in using the surname by which the author is bibliographically identified.
  3. Respect compound surnames and the linguistic and cultural nuances of the authors' names.
  4. Use standard capitalization (uppercase and lowercase letters) when identifying authors.
    Example: Antonio Carlos Souza
  5. Do not abbreviate surnames if the abbreviation alters the author's correct form of identification.
    Example: use Silva Junior, not Silva Jr., if that is the full form used by the author.
  6. Do not add expressions such as in memoriam to the surname field. Information of this nature should be recorded in appropriate context, rather than as part of the name used in bibliographic metadata.
  7. Do not fill in the Preferred name field unless there is a specific need or instruction to do so.
  8. Do not use institutions, journals, research groups, or other entities as personal names in the author registry.

12.4. Institutional affiliation

  1. Verify the institutional affiliation and country provided for each author.
  2. Record the institution's official name in full; avoid using acronyms alone.
  3. When available, use the institutional identifier standardized by ROR.
  4. Do not use academic titles, degrees, professions, or roles performed by the author as their affiliation.
  5. Do not use the name of a Graduate Program alone as the primary institution; also identify the institution to which the program is affiliated.

12.5. ORCID

  1. Whenever an ORCID is provided, verify that the identifier corresponds to the respective author.
  2. When the feature is available, use the system's authentication process to allow the author to link their ORCID directly.

12.6. Biography

Use the Biography field for supplementary author information—such as academic titles, academic or professional background, and other relevant details—in accordance with the journal's editorial policy.

12.7. Keywords

  1. Enter the keywords in the primary language and in any other languages ​​present in the document.
  2. Register each keyword individually.
  3. After entering a keyword, use the procedure indicated by the system (such as pressing Enter) so that each term is recorded separately.
  4. Do not copy all keywords as if they constituted a single term.
  5. Standardize capitalization according to the journal's policy.

12.8. Funding

  1. Consult the final version of the document to identify information regarding research funding.
  2. When funding exists, record the name of the funding agency and, if provided, the funding, project, case, or grant number.
  3. Use the OJS funding data feature or plugin, when available, for the standardized identification of funding organizations.
  4. Use the official name of the funding agency, avoiding informal translations of institutional proper names.

12.9. References

  1. Enter the complete list of references in the specific field designated for References in the metadata.
  2. If the field is not available, check its activation status in the journal's metadata and submission workflow settings.
  3. Enter each reference on a new line so that the items can be identified separately.
  4. Review the references and verify the consistency of authorship, titles, bibliographic data, and other information.
  5. Do not use dashes to omit repeated authorship; list the authors' names in every reference.
  6. If a reference has a DOI, verify the identifier and record it, preferably as an active link.
    Example: https://doi.org/10.xxxx/xxxxx
  7. Check the links provided in the references and avoid including addresses that are clearly incorrect or do not correspond to the cited document.

13. Production and layout formatting

After text editing is complete, the submission proceeds to the production or layout stage, where final files intended for publication—such as PDF, HTML, XML, or other formats adopted by the journal—are prepared.

Ensure that the version used for production corresponds to the version actually approved during the editorial process.

During layout preparation, carefully check titles, author names, affiliations, graphic elements, tables, equations, references, statements, licensing information, the DOI, and other editorial elements present in the file.

14. Pagination and article identification

  1. Fill in the pagination field in the tab corresponding to the issue if the journal uses pagination.
  2. When an electronic article identifier is used instead of pagination, follow the standard adopted by the journal.
  3. Verify that the information in the final file matches the information registered in the system.

15. DOI

  1. When DOI assignment is configured automatically, do not manually alter the identifier syntax unless necessary and without adhering to the policy defined by the Portal.
  2. Verify that the DOI shown in the system matches exactly the DOI listed in the final files. of the publication.
  3. If there is a discrepancy between the DOI in the system and the one displayed in the PDF, HTML, or other published format, correct the inconsistency before publication or consult the team responsible for the Portal.
  4. DOI deposit or registration with Crossref must follow the institutional procedure established by the Portal.

16. License

  1. Check the license adopted by the journal and verify that it has been correctly assigned to the publication.
  2. For journals that adopt Creative Commons licenses, verify that the license identification is correctly displayed in the system and, where required by the editorial design, in the published file.
  3. Ensure that the license indicated in the metadata is compatible with the one presented to the reader in the publication.

17. Issue composition

  1. Verify that the document is associated with the correct issue.
  2. Check the section in which the document will be published.
  3. Check the order of documents in the Table of Contents.
  4. Check the issue date and the publication date, correcting any inconsistencies before publication.
  5. In the case of a retrospectively published issue, carefully verify the dates used in the metadata to avoid contradictory information.

18. Proofing and final check

Before publication, perform a final check of the document and its associated metadata.

Check the following, where applicable:

  • title and subtitle;
  • titles in other languages;
  • abstracts in different languages;
  • author names and order;
  • institutional affiliations;
  • authors' country;
  • ORCID;
  • biographies;
  • keywords;
  • funding;
  • references;
  • pagination or electronic identifier;
  • DOI;
  • license;
  • final files;
  • publication section;
  • issue/edition;
  • position in the Table of Contents;
  • publication date.

Ensure that the metadata registered in the system matches the information presented in the final version intended for publication.

Do not finalize or publish the submission if there are significant discrepancies between the metadata, the final files, and the issue information.

19. Finalizing the editorial workflow

After completing copyediting, production, metadata verification, and final file preparation, ensure the submission is at the correct stage of the editorial workflow.

Always finalize publication preparation at the Layout/Production stage. Do not leave the submission in the Copyediting stage once the work for that stage has been completed.

Publication should only take place after the final check of the metadata and the files that will actually be made available to readers.

20.Publication

Before finalizing publication, perform a final check of the issue and confirm that all documents included in it are properly prepared.

The version made available to the reader must correspond to the final version approved during the editorial process and possess metadata consistent with its content.

21. General principles for editors

  • Do not automatically assume that metadata entered by authors during submission is correct.
  • Do not alter metadata without consulting the corresponding document or another reliable source available within the editorial process.
  • Maintain consistency between the registered metadata, the published files, and the issue information.
  • Adhere to the peer review model and confidentiality rules adopted by the journal.
  • Record editorial decisions in the system and keep the submission at the stage corresponding to the actual status of the editorial process.
  • Carefully verify information used for document identification and retrieval, especially authorship, title, affiliation, ORCID, abstract, keywords, funding, references, and DOI.
  • In the event of an inconsistency that cannot be reliably resolved by the journal team, consult the team responsible for the Portal prior to publication.

22. Editorial responsibility

Metadata quality is a key component of scientific publication quality. Incomplete, inconsistent, or incorrect metadata can compromise the identification, retrieval, and accurate representation of documents across the various services that utilize information provided by the journal.

It is the responsibility of editors and editorial teams to monitor submissions throughout the entire workflow, perform necessary checks, correct inconsistencies, and ensure that published documents are accompanied by complete, consistent and compatible with their content.

The guidelines in this document should be applied in conjunction with each journal's specific editorial policies. Particularities regarding peer review, the number of reviewers, deadlines, document types, acceptance criteria, licenses, and other procedures must adhere to the policies stated by each publication.