Peer Review Process

All manuscripts submitted to Revista Mundos do Trabalho are subject to a double-blind peer review, based on two main principles. The identities of author(s) and reviewers are not revealed to each other, and two external reviewers take part in the evaluation and making decision process. In addition, the evaluation includes four specific steps:

Submission Preparation Checklist

Firstly, the author(s) must verify and comply with the Submission Preparation Checklist:

1) The manuscript is original and unpublished, and is not being evaluated by another journal;
2) The authorship’s identification has been removed from the body of the text, from the notes and from the files properties of all documents submitted for evaluation (review the “Properties” menu in all documents to be uploaded);
3) The submission text files are in format .docx, .rtf or .odt, and its size does not exceed 2 Megabytes;
4) All Internet page addresses included in the text are active and ready to click (e. g., http://www.ibict.br);
5) The text follows all the style standards and bibliographic requirements described on the Authors Guidelines; the text uses italic instead of underlining (except URL addresses); and figures and tables are inserted in the text, not at the end;
6) The author(s) has an ORCID register (https://orcid.org/).

Secondly, the editors examine the adequacy of the manuscript according to the Submission Preparation Checklist and the journal’s thematic scope. Manuscripts that do not follow these criteria will be immediately refused and the author(s) will be informed about the decision. The author(s) can challenge and reverse the decision if the Editors’ mistake is proven.

External Review

If the manuscript complies with the journal’s criteria, it goes to the third step of evaluation. In this case, the Editors choose two external reviewers to evaluate the manuscript and its relevance for the Labour History field, taking into consideration the following aspects: objectives, originality, theoretical foundation, research sources, and methodology. Reviewers must point out relevant published work related to the manuscript’s subject, but not cited by the author. They must decide and justify precisely if the manuscript should be published and choose one of the four options: a) approved without changes; b) approved with minor changes; c) approved with structural changes; d) rejected. Conflicting evaluations are subjected to a third external reviewer and the report is checked by the editors before deciding on the publication's feasibility.

Journal Decision and Appeals

Finally, the editors communicate the journal’s decision to the author(s), as well as the content of the reports. If the manuscript is unconditionally approved (option a), the editors initiate the process of text editing with the author(s). If the manuscript is conditionally approved (options b or c), the editors establish a reasonable term for the author(s) to make the corrections before the text editing process.

If the author(s) does not agree with the corrections required, or the manuscript’s rejection (option d), the author(s) may request a re-evaluation by providing a clear and comprehensive explanation of the dissensus. The editors will analyse the request and its justification before opening a new round of evaluation with other reviewers. Otherwise, the evaluation process is concluded. If the author(s) does not finish the corrections within the term established by the editors, the evaluation process is also concluded, and the manuscript will not be published.

Conflicting Interests

In case of conflicting interests, the reviewers should not accept evaluating the manuscript. They should declare to the editors if such a condition is identified and interrupt the evaluation immediately. This principle eliminates any kind of conflicting interests, such as: the reviewer is employed in the same institution as the author’s: the reviewer has supervised the author(s) in the last five years. The reviewer must also decline to produce a report if the manuscript been reviewed bears resemblance to a publication he or she has been preparing or is to be published soon.

Ethical Problem with a Submitted Manuscript

If an editor or a reviewer raises ethical concern about a submitted manuscript (such as those described in the journal’s Retraction Policy), the editors will follow COPE Guideline.