Guidelines and Policies
Manuscripts must be submitted at https://pmd.submitcentral.com.br.
Please use the search box on the top right hand corner of this page to find and download PDF files of recent published articles, for a first look on how articles are structured and published in PRODUCT.
IMPORTANT NOTE TO ALL AUTHORS! A publication fee of R$ 430.00 (BRL) per article will be charged at the time of acceptance for publication. A 50% discount will apply in case there is at least one IGDP associate member among the authors of the article (R$ 215.00 BRL). No submission and review fees are charged.
All manuscripts must be submitted at https://pmd.submitcentral.com.br.
MANUSCRIPT SUBMISSION GUIDELINES
A manuscript submitted for publication must be accompanied by a cover page containing the full name of the author(s), the author for contact, institution address, phone number, e-mail address, corresponding ORCIDs. Reviewed manuscripts must also be accompanied by a separate document in PDF format containing responses to each one of the Reviewers’ comments. Authors must review the 'document properties' of all submitted files in advance, so that any personal information is not accidentally disclosed (for further information, please refer to the following links: MS Word and Acrobat Reader).
Files to be uploaded to the online submission:
- PDF version of the manuscript
- MS Word version used to generated the PDF
- cover page containing the full name of the author(s), the author for contact, institution address, phone number, e-mail address, corresponding ORCIDs.
- rebuttal letter to the reviewers, for submissions of revised articles.
All papers should be written in English, in the third person in an objective, formal and impersonal style. American or British English is accepted, but not a mixture of these. Authors who feel their manuscript may require checking to eliminate possible grammatical or spelling errors and to conform to correct scientific English are encouraged to use software tools such as Grammarly or seek professional proofreading services prior to submission. SI units should be used.
STYLE AND FORMAT
Manuscripts should be typed doubled-space, with 2,5 cm margins and font Times New Roman with point size 12. The pages should be numbered and not to excess twenty-five (25), including tables, figures and bibliographical references.
All manuscripts submitted to PMD must adhere to the APA Citation Style. For further information, authors may access https://www.mendeley.com/guides/apa-citation-guide.
Acceptable references include journal articles, numbered papers, dissertations, thesis, published conference proceedings, preprints from conferences, books, submitted articles, if the journal is identified, and private communications.
Click here to download the MS Word template: PMD_Template.docx
Manuscripts should begin with title, followed by an abstract of the not more than 200 words: covering the aims of the work, methods used, results obtained and main conclusions reached. From three to five keywords, for information retrieval purposes, should be indicated. The manuscripts should not contain the authors’ names. The body of the paper should be organized into logical sections sequentially numbered with no more than two grades of subheadings: title, abstract and keywords; text; attachments; acknowledges, bibliographical references. Do not include footnotes.
PEER REVIEW PROCESS
1. Submission of Paper
The corresponding or submitting author submits the paper to the journal. This is done exclusively by the PMD Submission System (available at https://pmd.submitcentral.com.br/). No submissions by e-mail will be accepted.
2. Editorial Office Assessment
The Editor-in-chief checks the paper’s composition and arrangement against the PRODUCT’s guidelines and policies to make sure it structured appropriately for a scientific paper. In addition, a similarity check is performed at this time for ensuring originality of the manuscript. The quality of the paper is not assessed at this point.
3. Appraisal by the Editor
The Editor-in-chief checks that the paper is appropriate for the journal and is aligned with its mission and scope. If not, the paper may be rejected at this point.
4. Assignment of the Handling Editor
The Editor-in-chief may assign an Associate or Guest Editor for handling the peer review at this stage, who then becomes the Handling Editor.
5. Invitation to Reviewers
The Handling Editor sends invitations to individuals trusted to be appropriate reviewers. As responses are received, further invitations are issued, if necessary, until the required number of acceptances is obtained – 2 (two) in the case of Regular Track Papers or 1 (one) in the case of Fast Track Papers, i.e., papers which have been previously screened by partnering organisations, such as conference scientific committees.
6. Response to Invitations
Potential reviewers consider the invitation against their own expertise, conflicts of interest and availability. They then accept or decline. If possible, when declining, they might also suggest alternative reviewers.
7. Conduction of Reviews
The reviewer sets time aside to read the paper several times. The first read is used to form an initial impression of the work. If major problems are found at this stage, the reviewer may feel comfortable rejecting the paper without further work. Otherwise they will read the paper several more times, taking notes so as to build a detailed point-by-point review. The review is then submitted to the PMD via the PMD Submission System (available at https://pmd.submitcentral.com.br/), with a recommendation to accept or reject it – or else with a request for revision (flagged as either major or minor) before it is reconsidered.
8. Evaluation of Reviews
The Handling Editor considers all the returned reviews before making an overall decision. If the reviews differ widely, the Handling Editor may invite an additional reviewer so as to get an extra opinion before making a decision.
9. COMMUNICATION OF THE DECISION
The Handling Editor crafts a recommendation letter and sends it by e-mail to the corresponding author, who may access the reviewers’ comments at the Submission System (available at https://pmd.submitcentral.com.br/).
10. Next Steps
If accepted, the paper is sent to production. If the article is rejected or sent back for either major or minor revision, the Handling Editor includes constructive comments from the reviewers to help the author improve the article. If the paper is sent back for revision, the reviewers may expect to receive a new version. However, where only minor changes were requested this follow-up review may be done by the Handling Editor.
PUBLICATION ETHICS AND PUBLICATION MALPRACTICE STATEMENT
PRODUCT is a peer-reviewed journal committed to ensuring the highest standards of publication ethics. All parties involved in the act of publishing (editors, authors, reviewers and the publisher) are expected to agree and adhere to the following standards of ethical behaviour based on the Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors of the Committee on Publication Ethics – COPE - Core Practices (available at https://publicationethics.org/core-practices).
1. Responsibilities of the Editor-in-Chief and Associate Editors
The Editor-in-Chief and the Associate Editors are responsible for
- deciding which of the manuscripts submitted to the journal should be published. In making these decisions, they are guided by the policies of the journal and by legal requirements regarding libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism;
- providing guidance to guest editors, authors and reviewers on everything that is expected of them and also a description of peer review processes;
- providing new editorial board members with guidelines on everything that is expected of them and keeping existing members updated on new policies and developments;
- evaluating manuscripts exclusively on the basis of their academic and intellectual merit, without regard to the author(s)’ race, age, gender, sexual orientation, disability, ethnic origin, religious belief, citizenship, political orientation or social class;
- ensuring a fair and unbiased double-blind peer review of the manuscripts and that all information related to them is kept confidential. They also ensure that both authors’ and peer reviewers’ identities are protected;
- ensuring that appropriate reviewers are selected;
- developing and maintaining a database of suitable reviewers and updating it on the basis of reviewer performance;
- ensuring that unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript are not used in an editor’s own research without the express written consent of the author;
- taking reasonable responsive measures when ethical complaints are presented concerning a submitted or published manuscript. In cases of suspected misconduct, they follow the COPE flowcharts, available at http://publicationethics.org/files/Full%20set%20of%20flowcharts.pdf;
- publishing corrections, clarifications, retractions and apologies whenever needed.
2. Guest Editors’ Responsibilities
Guest Editors are responsible for
- defining the subject matter and role of every article in a special issue;
- providing clear guidelines to authors regarding the topic and boundaries of their contributions and the overall design of the issue;
- ensuring, in collaboration with the Editor-in-Chief and Associate Editors, that appropriate reviewers are selected for all the articles (whether they have been commissioned or submitted as a result of a call for papers);
- establishing a timeline for draft paper submission, peer review, revision and final paper submission with the executive editorial board, and ensuring that all deadlines are met;
- writing the Editorial to the issue.
- all items listed in item 1.
3. Authors’ Responsibilities
- Authors of reports of original research should present an accurate account of the work performed as well as an objective discussion of its significance. Underlying data should be represented accurately in the manuscript. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behaviour and are unacceptable;
- Authors should not submit the same manuscript simultaneously to more than one publication at a time. This constitutes unethical publishing behaviour and is unacceptable;
- Authors must ensure that they have written original works and that any work or words of others authors, contributors or sources have been appropriately credited and referenced;
- Authors submitting their works to PRODUCT for publication as original articles confirm that the submitted works represent their own contributions and have not been copied or plagiarized in whole or in part from other works without clearly citing the source. Authors should cite publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work;
- Plagiarism in all its forms constitutes unethical publishing behaviour and is unacceptable;
- Authors must ensure that the manuscript has not been published elsewhere;
- Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the reported study. All those who have made significant contributions should be listed as co-authors. Others who have participated in certain substantive aspects of the research project should be acknowledged or listed as contributors;
- The corresponding author with the journal should ensure that all appropriate co-authors are included in the author list of the manuscript, and that there is a full consensus of all co-authors in approving the final version of the paper and its submission for publication;
- Authors should disclose financial or other conflict of interest that might influence the results or interpretation of their manuscript. All sources of financial support should be disclosed;
- When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in his/her own published work, it is the author’s obligation to promptly notify the journal editors and cooperate with them to retract or correct the manuscript.
4. Reviewers’ Responsibilities
- Peer review assists the Editor-in-Chief and Associate Editors of PRODUCT in making editorial decisions and, through the editorial communication with the author, may also assist the author in improving the manuscript;
- Any invited referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its timely review will be impossible should immediately notify the editor so that alternative reviewers can be contacted;
- Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents;
- Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage;
- Reviewers must report to the Editor-in-Chief of PRODUCT if they are aware of copyright infringement and plagiarism on the author’s part;
- Reviews should be conducted objectively, and observations should be formulated clearly with supporting arguments, so that authors can use them for improving the paper;
- Reviewers evaluate manuscripts based on content without regard to the authors’ race, age, gender, ethnic origin, sexual orientation, disability, religious belief, citizenship, political orientation or social class;
- Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.