Focus and Scope
The ForScience Scientific Journal focuses on print original writings like: articles, theoretical essays, reports on experiences and work replication as well. Those are amongst its principal aims:
I – To be a space for diffusion of knowledge resulting from scientific examination and a place for public discussion and arguments about those findings unearthed out of the field of Computer Science, Electrical Engineering, Administration/Management and Mathematics.
II - To stimulate and to develop interchange among researchers, teachers, and learners of the aforesaid areas.
III - To contribute to production and socialization of knowledge along with society.
ForScience Scientific Journal has its scope on the publishing of original research papers which resulted from theory and theoretical empirical development that present original contributions and are aligned to the research approaches to comply with CNPq thematical lines:
a) 1.01.00.00-8 Mathematics;
b) 1.02.00.00-2 Probability and statistics;
c) 1.03.00.00-7 Computer science;
d) 3.04.00.00-7 Electrical engineering;
e) 3.05.00.00-1 Mechanical Engineering;
f) 6.02.00.00-6 Administration;
g) 6.02.04.00-1 Accounting Sciences;
h) 6.03.00.00-0 Economy;
i) 7.08.00.00-6 Education;
j) 9.02.01.00-0 Science and Mathematics Teaching
Peer Review Process
The appraising process is aimed at contributing to the quality improvement of the articles received. It is performed in two phases: an admission review (Desk-review) and appraising by experts ( double blind review on the system).
STEP 1
Admission review (Desk-review) will be carried out by the Chief-Editor, assisted by the Co-editor or Field Editors aiming at evaluating:
a) Compliance of the work with the thematic lines for the journal;
b) Compliance with the norms for structuring and format of the article as well as layout use indicated on “Guidelines for Authors”;
c) Quality of the writings (grammar/spellings) and observance of recommendations from ABNT as to summary, citations, and references;
d) Originality degree and the potential for contributing to the advancement of the thematic area.
The writings not complying with the thematic areas will have its appraising process interrupted , and those articles will be safe kept. Suggestions for alternative periodicals can be offered.
The articles with no observance of formatting rules for submission or which are not in conformity with ABNT regulations and writing quality requirements as above mentioned will also be filed . On those cases, the authors will be asked to perform new submissions in accordance with the regulations as mentioned in the section “Guidelines for the Authors”.
Those articles considered low level of originality or low contribution to the literature of the field will also have the appraisal process stopped and the paper will be filed.
A decision on the Admission review will be taken, and the authors will be communicated in up to 30 days time.
The papers approved in this first phase are to follow through the valuation flow to reach experts appraisal phase.
DESK REVIEW CRITERIA
1) Is the work aligned to any of the thematic areas covered by the Journal, as (Mathematics, Computer Science, Electrical Engineering, Administration, Accounting Science, Economics)?
( ) Yes ( ) No
2) The paper used the layout model made available by the journal?
( ) Yes ( ) No
3) Does the summary presents:
3.1 – The aim?
( ) Yes ( ) No
3.2 – The method which was used?
( ) Yes ( ) No
3.3 – The found results?
( ) Yes ( ) No
3.4 - The main conclusions?
( ) Yes ( ) No
4) The introduction describes:
4.1 – A context for the theme?
( ) Yes ( ) No
4.2 – The aim of the work?
( ) Yes ( ) No
4.3 – Justification to the relevance of the work?
( ) Yes ( ) No
5) Development and demonstration of the results present:
5.1 – A theoretical discussion on the subject?
( ) Yes ( ) No
5.2 – A clear methodology application?
( ) Yes ( ) No
6) The paper contain an explicit conclusion section?
( ) Yes ( ) No
7) Is the quality of the writing (spelling/grammar)satisfactory?
( ) Yes ( ) No
8) Is the work in compliance with the instructions from Associação Brasileira de Normas Técnicas (ABNT) as for summary, citations, and references?
( ) Yes ( ) No
9) Does the work indicate a minimum of potential contribution to the advancement of the thematical lines defined by ForScience Journal?
( ) Yes ( ) No
PHASE 2
In this step, the Area Editors of the Journal will designate the papers to two or more appraisers from the Scientific Committee in accordance with the respective areas.
Double Blind Review will be applied for evaluation in this phase.
For each paper, the examiners will evaluate aspects related to:
a) Modernity of the theme;
b) Originality of the work;
c) Theoretical consistency and relevance of the text concerning the knowledge development of the area;
d) The quality of the theory reference used;
e) The contribution of the work to knowledge on the area the paper is referring to;
f) The quality and appropriateness of the methodology applied;
g) The quality of the analysis and the discussion of the information (if it is the case);
h) Conclusions: accomplishment, coerence, and foundation .
For specific cases due to the complexity of theme, ad hoc appraisers might be invited by the editors when necessary.
In accord with Scientific Committee decision the work may receive one of the recommendations as follow:
I – Be published with no change;
II – Be published with some changes;
III – Have publication not accepted.
The examiners will be given a 7 days deadline, counted from the receiving date of an e-mail message so as to confirmation of assessment availability.
To the examiners a maximum of 60 days from the date of receiving the paper to the presentation of the first opinion. After this given time, if the respective appraiser does not manifest an opinion, the editor will select another appraiser for the case.
After it has being approved, the document will go through “text editing” which includes: revision on Portuguese and English languages use and normalization, and then it can be published.
ARTICLE APPRAISAL CRITERIA
1) TITLE
1.1 Title of the paper being appraised;
1.2 The title is clear and concise and it reflects the work content.
2) INTRODUCTION
2.1 Does the contextualization of the topic presented in the introduction give a clear general idea of the approach from the work to the reader?
2.2 Has the aim of the survey been clearly described?
2.3 Has the relevance of the work been justified to the progress of the “state of the art”?
3) THEORETICAL BASIS
3.1 Is the quality of the bibliographical review satisfactory?
3.2 Does the theory fundamentalism that was presented contribute to the extent of the proposed aims?
4 METHODOLOGY APPROACH
4.1 Were the selection, the size and the features of the sampling clearly defined and are they suitable for the purposes of the survey?
4.2 The definition of models, proceedings and method instruments to collect and analysis of data are suitable to the aims of the study?
4.3 Can the paper be reprinted based on the information available on the method?
5) PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF THE RESULTS
5.1 Do the reached resulted describe that the work accomplished the planned objectives.
5.2 Does the discussion of the results reached add information beyond those which were presented on the support elements (tables, graphics, illustrations, schedules)?
5.3 Is there a pertinent deliverance of the bibliographical revision on the discussion of the results, raising, thus, for further debates and reflections?
6) CONCLUSIONS
6.1 Does the conclusion presents the speech of the author carrying out a synthesis about the work and its main ideas and outcomes?
6.2 Does the paper describe the main restrictions that were identified during the investigation?
6. 3 Does the article present suggestions to future studies?
7) RELEVANCE AND ORIGINALITY
7.1 Is the approached topic an original one?
7.2 Does the work present scientific contribution to the current knowledge in the thematic area?
Publication Frequency
ForScience Journal has semestral periodicity on electronic format, with the publishing of the approved papers through a continuous flow, as soon as the article has been approved and pass through all the editing and revision phases.
Open Access Policy
ForScience Journal offers free and immediate access to its contents, following the principle that making the scientific knowledge freely available to the public provides a greater democratization of worldwide knowledge.
Nominata
Evaluators 2013
- Adler Diniz de Souza
- Alexandre Franco Magalhães
- Arlete Aparecida Abreu
- Bruno César de Melo Moreira
- Denise Ferreira Garcia Rezende
- Ewerton Alex Avelar
- Fábio Lúcio Corrêa Junior
- Isabel Cristina da Silva Arantes
- Lucas Silvestre de Carvalho
- Mariana Guimarães dos Santos
- Otávio Souza Martins Gomes
- Paulo Alecrin Dias
- Rafael de Magalhães Dias Frinhani
- Thiago de Souza Santos
- Tomás Dias Sant'Ana
- Walter Alves Durão Júnior
- Washington Santos da Silva
Evaluators 2014
- Alexandre Franco Magalhães
- Américo Pierangeli Costa
- Ana Carolina Guerra
- Anderson Alves Santos
- Arlete Aparecida Abreu
- Bruno César de Melo Moreira
- Cícero Garrozi
- Daniel Otávio Tambasco Bruno
- Denise Ferreira Garcia Rezende
- Elisa Reis Guimarães
- Ewerton Alex Avelar
- Fábio Lúcio Corrêa Junior
- Francisco de Sousa Junior
- Ivan Reinaldo Meneghini
- João Paulo Reus Rodrigues Leite
- Jorge Luís Costa
- José Sérgio Domingues
- Kelly Maria de Camps Fornero Abreu de Lima Melillo
- Leandro Lemos
- Lília Paula Andrade
- Marcondes Lomeu Bicalho
- Maria Elizabeth de Gouvea
- Mariana Guimarães dos Santos
- Miguel Rivera Peres Júnior
- Otávio Souza Martins Gomes
- Patrick Fernandes Lopes
- Paulo Alecrin Dias
- Pedro Mrinho Sizenando Silva
- Rafael de Magalhães Dias Frinhani
- Rogério Zanon daSilveira
- Sâmara Borges Macedo
- Thatyana de Faria Piola Seraphim
- Thiago de Souza Santos
- Walter Alves Durão Júnior
- Washington Santos da Silva
Evaluators 2015
- Arlete Aparecida de Abreu
- Bruno César de Melo Moreira
- Daniel Otávio Tambasco Bruno
- Deyse Márcia Pacheco Gebert
- Estela Maria Perez Diaz
- Ewerton Alex Avelar
- Fábio Lúcio Corrêa Junior
- Luiz Carlos Nogueira Júnior
- Luzia Aparecida da Costa
- Maria Luiza Grillo Renó
- Ricardo Carrasco Carpio
- Tomás Dias Sant'Ana
- Wanderci Alves Bitencourt
Evaluators 2016
- Cícero Garrozi
- Danilo Lacerda Borges
- Alexandre Franco Magalhães
- Alice Rosa da Silva
- Almiralva Ferraz Gomes
- Ana Paula Cararro Borges
- BENEDITO ISAIAS LIMA LOPES
- Daniel Fonseca Costa
- Eder Marinho Martins
- Gustavo Clemente Valadares
- Gustavo Henrique Lima
- João Paulo Reus Rodrigues Leite
- Jorge Luís Costa
- José Sérgio Domingues
- Lélis Pedro de Andrade
- Luiza Bernardes Real
- Luzia Aparecida da Costa
- Magda Vieira da Silva Oliveira
- Marcondes Lomeu Bicalho
- Marcos Franke Costa
- Mônica Lana da Paz
- Neila Marcelle Gualberto Leite
- Otávio Souza Martins Gomes
- Renan Souza Moura
- Rodrigo Itaboray Frade
- Tiago Cardoso Barbosa
- Tomás Dias Sant'Ana
- Wallace Almeida Rodrigues
Evaluators 2017
- Almiralva Ferraz Gomes
- Ana Carolina Guerra
- Arlete Aparecida de Abreu
- Christiane Batista de Paulo Lobato
- Daniel Fonseca Costa
- Danielle Costa de Oliveira
- Efrem Ferreira
- Elisangela Citro Turci
- Everthon Valadao
- Fernanda Silva
- Flávio Nasser Drumond
- Gustavo Della Colletta
- Jorge Luís Costa
- José Sérgio Domingues
- Kelly Maria de Campos Fornero Abreu de Lima Melillo
- Lúcia Helena Costa Braz
- Luciano Coutinho Gomes
- Luiz Carlos Nogueira Júnior
- Luzia Aparecida da Costa
- Magda Vieira da Silva Oliveira
- Maíra Rodrigues Villamagna
- Maria Elizabeth de Gouvea
- Mário Luiz Rodrigues Oliveira
- Mônica Lana da Paz
- Nayara Teixeira Santos
- Paloma Maira de Oliveira
- Paulo Alecrim Dias
- Pedro Machado de Almeida
- Priscilla Cavalcante
- Reginaldo Gonçalves Leão Júnior
- Renan Souza Moura
- Rodrigo Itaboray Frade
- Roseana Moreira de Figueiredo Coelho
- Saulo Fernando dos Santos Vidal
- Tatiane Reis do Amaral
- Tiago Cardoso Barbosa
- Tomás Dias Sant'Ana
- Viviane Cristina Almada de Oliveira