About the Journal

Focus and Scope

With the intent of aligning its content to the demands of the academic community in the field of Administration, the journal, in addition to including original papers and theoretical essays, values case studies, descriptions of good practices in teaching and learning, and book reviews. The content of these texts must contribute to epistemological and methodological reflection; the professional development of business administrators, especially as regards processes that involve teaching and learning thus being able to influence students' learning; or the academic management of undergraduate Administration courses. Being a vehicle for the dissemination of international academic production, the Administração: Ensino e Pesquisa publishes papers by authors from Brazil and abroad. The following are the main topics (within the subject of education and research in management) that RAEP accepts for publication:

  • Epistemological issues in management;
  • Quantitative and qualitative research strategies and methods;
  • Ethical and responsible conduct in teaching and research;
  • Education/formation of professors and researchers;
  • Academic training and learning;
  • Advanced teaching and learning environment;
  • Institutional context of teaching and research;
  • Course and program planning and organization;
  • Teaching cases for Administration/Management.

Peer Review Process

The journal Administração: Ensino e Pesquisa adopts a double-blind review process in the evaluation of submitted papers. For this reason, when submitting a contribution to the journal, the author(s) must not identify their respective name(s) in the body of the text. Should this happen, the paper will be automatically disqualified. The details regarding the authorship of the paper must be registered only in the appropriate area while submitting the paper in the system.

All contributions submitted for evaluation must be original and unpublished, either nationally or internationally. They must adhere to the academic writing style regarding structure, content, and language used. Further, texts submitted to Administração: Ensino e Pesquisa may not be under evaluation for inclusion in other, either national or international, academic publications.

Papers may be submitted in Portuguese, English, and Spanish.

EVALUATION PROCESS

Papers sent for publication in Administração: Ensino e Pesquisa (RAEP) are subject to an evaluation process aimed at disseminating the best contributions received and evaluated until each edition is completed.

The evaluation process begins with an evaluation by the Editor (desk review). At this stage, the suitability of the paper regarding the publication's editorial policy will be assessed. The Editor will then forward suitable papers to two evaluators, in a process of double-blind review. At this time, the evaluators will receive the evaluation criteria that should be considered in their evaluation of the paper. Administração: Ensino e Pesquisa counts with a body of evaluators that comprises approximately 300 academics. This group is renewed as necessary, always with the intent to reinforce the highest editorial standards.

The reviewers are oriented to contribute with constructive arguments to the improvement of the contents of the paper being evaluated. Therefore, at the end of the initial evaluation, the work may be "approved", "approved depending on adjustments to be made by the authors", or "dispensed from a second evaluation by the reviewers". The reviewers' contributions are sent to the author, who is expected to make the suggested changes. Once these have been made, the author sends the revised paper to the Editor, who, in turn, will forward it to the evaluators so that they can undertake the second assessment, resulting in the approval or rejection of the paper for publication.

If the two reviewers do not reach a consensus, the Editor will send the paper to a third reviewer, who will undertake an evaluation based on the reviews the paper already received, aiming to decide whether the work should remain under the evaluation process, depending upon adjustments to be made by the author, or if it should be rejected. After the paper has been recommended for publication, it will undergo professional diagramming prior to being published.

The Editor will reject papers that do not present the minimum conditions or are not in line with the journal's editorial policy, without being obliged to send the authors a complete report. This procedure is believed to contribute to the author(s) interested in submitting their paper to another academic journal.

The criteria considered in the evaluation process are listed below and are applied based on the nature and type of paper. We strongly recommend that authors verify, before submitting, if the paper meets the scope and criteria considered by RAEP and also the Author Guidelines.

Additionally, we recommend that referees observe the guidelines related to the evaluation process available in our Manual for Referees. 

After the evaluation process is completed, when the result is favorable to publication, the authors will be asked to provide the Portuguese review of the manuscript (including tables, charts, and figures), the references according to the ABNT guidelines and also a translated version of the material into English in order to disseminate the publication internationally.

EVALUATION CRITERIA

PAPERS

1. Currentness and originality of the work. The relevance of contributions.

Is the paper aligned with the research agenda of the field? Does it contribute to the advancement of knowledge on the subject? On some level, does it alter the vision that one has about the problem investigated? Does it contribute to solving relevant problems?

2. Adequacy and consistency of the theoretical framework

Was the review of the literature adequate to support the structuration of a consistent theoretical framework? Does it contemplate all the constructs addressed in the paper?

3. Adequacy of methodological resources utilized

Are the methodological resources employed compatible with the requirements of the problem investigated?

4. Adequacy of the research process. Quality of description, interpretation, and analysis.

Was the data collection (qualitative and/or quantitative) adequate? Is the data sufficient for analysis? Were the data processed, described, interpreted, and analyzed in the light of the chosen theoretical framework? Was the argumentative exercise sufficiently thorough? Does the research process legitimize the conclusions reached?

5. Adequacy of title, abstract, introduction, and conclusion.

Is there consistency between the title (and subtitle) and the content of the paper? Does the abstract properly reflect the structure and content of the paper? Do the keywords reflect the key terms of the paper’s discussion? Does the introduction familiarize the reader with the content of the paper? Is there consistency between the conclusion and the stated objectives? Are the results achieved sufficiently well-founded?

6. Aspects related to the format

Does the text follow the guidelines indicated in the Author Guidelines section? Does the text comply with the formatting guidelines? Does it adhere to the requirements of good academic writing? Does it adhere to the ABNT norms regarding the citations (NBR10520: 2002) and references (NBR6023: 2002) of bibliographical and documental materials used?

TEACHING CASE

In terms of content, we suggest that the authors consider the following aspects:

  • Tells a story and is rich in information about Context and Participants;
  • It is recent and addresses an issue that tends to be relevant for some years;
  • Focuses on an issue of growing interest involving topics related to management;
  • Requires management solutions;
  • Has the potential to help teaching for the management practice;
  • Provides students with the assessment of different scenarios through previous decisions.

In terms of format, the following aspects should be considered:

  • Adoption of a structure that presents a management challenge(s) and decision-making process;
  • Documents and attachments that support the resolution of the Case;
  • Teaching Notes with the items suggested in the Teaching Case Section Policies.

BOOK REVIEWS

  • To what extent, does the book contribute to the advancement of knowledge in teaching and learning in Administration, or does it contribute to the advancement of research practices?
  • What is the quality of the synthesis presented?
  • Has the usefulness and relevance of the book been sufficiently worked on?
  • Were the conclusions and perspectives elaborated with quality and were the questions indicated above presented? 

Publication Frequency

Administração: Ensino e Pesquisa is published three (3) times a year (January 1st / May 1st / September 1st).

Open Access Policy

The online version of Administração: Ensino e Pesquisa (RAEP) is available in open access for consultation and use by the national and international academic community. Thus, those responsible for the journal offer free and immediate access to the contents of each edition, believing that making the technical and academic production available at no cost to the greater public represents a collaborative effort in democratizing access to knowledge.

The journal does not charge authors for submissions nor for the publication of approved papers.

Code of Ethics

The code of ethics of the journal Administração: Ensino e Pesquisa (RAEP) is based on the ANPAD Manual of Good Practices on Scientific Publishing (ANPAD, 2010), the Code of Conduct and Guidelines for Best Practice for Scientific Journal Editors of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE, 2011), as well as consolidated practices of scientific publishing in the field of Business Administration.

1. Issues related to Publication and Authorship

a. List of references and funding

Authors should appropriately list and cite, according to the instructions given in the instructions for authors page of RAEP, the works that served as the basis for the research development. In addition, they should provide information, where appropriate, on the sources of research funding, in an acknowledgments section at the end of the article or in a footnote at the beginning.

b. Plagiarism and fraudulent data

Authors must declare that the papers are of their own authorship and that any third-party material used was appropriately referenced and used in a legitimate way. No plagiarism, forgery or fabrication of data will be allowed. Publishers may perform a plagiarism check of articles before rendering them to ad-hoc reviewers and authors will be contacted if any inconsistencies are identified.

c. Publication of the same article in more than one journal

Authors must declare that articles submitted for evaluation and their essential content are original, unpublished and are not being evaluated by another scientific journal. If the article has been published in a scientific event, the authors should inform the editors in the appropriate field in the system when submitting the article.

2. Responsibilities of Authors

a. The authenticity of data/article information

Authors must ensure that all data presented in the article is real and authentic. If the editors and/or ad-hoc reviewers identify inconsistencies, the authors will be contacted for clarification.

b. Authors' contributions

The authors included in the article must have contributed significantly to the preparation of the paper. After the final acceptance of the article for publication, the authors may request changes in the ordering of the authors, but the inclusion of new authors will not be allowed.

c. Corrections and retractions

All authors should provide, when necessary, corrections or retractions of errors made.

d. Approval in Publication Research Ethics Commission

Authors should ensure that the research, when appropriate, has been approved by the relevant body (e.g., Research Ethics Committee) (ANPAD, 2010).

e. Invitation to be a reviewer for RAEP

Authors may be invited to be reviewers for the journal peer review process. If authors are successful in publishing an article in RAEP, they may be called upon to evaluate an article for the journal (ANPAD, 2010). If the authors are called upon to act in this role, they should do so with dedication, promptness and scientific seriousness, contributing to the improvement of the article.

3. Peer Review process and Responsibilities of Reviewers

a. Reviewers and their Responsibilities

  • Reviewers should refuse to evaluate an article if they do not feel qualified to the task. Only agree to evaluate manuscripts if you:
    • have knowledge on the subject to carry out an adequate review
    • are able to assess the paper in a timely manner
      • "To comply with the agreed devolution date is a matter of ethics, respect and responsibility of the review function (ANPAD, 2010)".
  • Reviewers should have no conflict of interest with the research, authors and/or funders of the research being evaluated.
  • Reviewers should declare potential conflicts of interest (personal, financial, intellectual, professional, political or religious) so the editorial staff can better align future review requests.
  • Since the evaluation process is double-blind, evaluators should inform the editor if the author's identity is known to them.
  • Evaluators should not use or misappropriate the knowledge acquired during the evaluation process of the articles.
  • Articles evaluated should be treated confidentially. Reviewers should respect the confidentiality of the peer review and should not reveal any details of a manuscript or its review during or after the evaluation process (COPE, 2011).

b. On the reviews

They should be objective and constructive, abstaining from hostilities and avoiding making defamatory or derogatory personal comments (COPE, 2011).

The reviewer should point out the faults that can be corrected indicating what should be done to both. "The reviewer should always evaluate the cost-effectiveness of each requested change in terms of effective improvement in manuscript quality" (ANPAD, 2010).

Reviewers should suggest references of relevant works that were not cited, where scientifically pertinent to the article and/or its reformulation.

The reviewers should seek to indicate all the changes that could be made in the first revision of the article, avoiding new recommendations when the article is returned.

4. Editorial Responsibilities

a. RAEP editors and editorial team commitment

The editors of RAEP are committed to, whenever possible (Based on COPE, 2011):

  • meet the needs of readers and authors;
  • constantly improve the journal;
  • ensure the quality of the published material;
  • defend freedom of expression;
  • maintain the integrity of the academic record;
  • prevent business, government or civil society needs from compromising intellectual standards;
  • publish corrections, clarifications, withdrawals and apologies when necessary.

Editors will strive to maintain the quality and relevance of the publication, which includes ensuring that the evaluation of submitted articles is objective, fair and conducted in accordance with the norms and standards of scientific research in the area of Business Administration. The editors, through the selection of reviewers, will seek to promote a competent and impartial evaluation of the articles. Publishers will seek reviewers who are not from the same institution as the authors of the article and are not their habitual co-authors. They will also seek to select reviewers with qualifications compatible with the work to be evaluated (ANPAD, 2010).

b. Editors Responsibility on the Approval and Rejection of Articles

RAEP editors have full responsibility and authority to reject/accept an article submitted to the journal. Editors are responsible for the final decision to accept or reject articles, considering their quality, originality, relevance, and adherence to the journal's editorial line. This decision may, if duly justified, be in breach of the recommendations made by the evaluators.

c. Conflict of interest

The editor should have no conflict of interest with respect to the articles he rejects/accepts. If he/she identifies a conflict of interest, the editor will pass the decision-making responsibility to one of the members of the editorial committee, as long as the editorial committee member also has no conflict of interest.

d. Corrections

Publishers should post corrections in the shortest possible time when they find an error in the publication.

e. Anonymity

Editors should preserve the anonymity of the reviewers. The confidential treatment of manuscripts submitted must be ensured by all those involved in the evaluation process.

Editors should not use or misappropriate knowledge acquired during the article evaluation process.

5. Issues of Ethics in Publication

a. Monitoring/safeguarding publication ethics by the Editorial Board

The RAEP Editorial Board is responsible for monitoring compliance with this code of ethics. In addition, it should be always aware of changes in the scientific publishing standards of the Business Administration area.

b. Guidelines for article retraction (Based on COPE, 2011)

Publishers may consider retracting an article if:

  • there is clear evidence that the results are unreliable, either as a result of misconduct (e.g., fabrication of data) or by an honest error (e.g., miscalculation or experimental error);
  • the findings have previously been published elsewhere without proper reference, permission or justification (i.e., redundant publication cases);
  • constitutes plagiarism;
  • reports unethical research.

Retraction notices should state the reasons and grounds for retraction (to distinguish cases of misconduct from those of honest error) and should also specify who is retracting the article. They should be published in all versions of the journal (printed and electronic) and should include the title of the article and their respective authors.

c. Maintaining the integrity of the academic record (Based on COPE, 2011)

When recognizing the publication of a misleading or distorted report, it should be promptly corrected and given prominence in the journal. If after an appropriate investigation, it proves that an item is fraudulent, it must be retracted. Retreatment should be clearly identifiable to readers and indexing systems.

Editorial process statistics

Average time for Peer Review: 3 to 6 months

Average time between submission and publication: 6 to 12 months. In case of special editions this expectation can increase up to 12 months.

Acceptance rate: 7,2%

 

Ad hoc Reviewers 2019

Journal History

In the year 2000, by initiative of the leaders of the Brazilian National Association of Undergraduate Courses in Administration (ANGRAD), the journal was created with the name Revista ANGRAD (ISSN 1518-5532). Ten years later (2010), seeking to communicate more clearly the journal focus on issues involving teaching and research in management, the journal was renamed Administração: Ensino e Pesquisa – RAEP.

Editors who worked in the journal:

  • Antônio de Araujo Freitas Junior (FGV-EBAPE) – July 2000 to December 2003.
  • Maria da Graça Pitiá Barreto (UFBA) – January 2004 to December 2008.
  • Eliane Pereira Zamith Brito (FGV-EAESP) – January 2009 to September 2011.
  • Manolita Correia Lima (ESPM) – October 2011 to May 2016.
  • Claudia de Salles Stadtlober (UNISINOS) - June 2016 to December 2017.
  • Edson Sadao Iizuka (Centro Universitário FEI) - Janeiro de 2018 a Dezembro de 2023.
  •