Peer Review Process

The article is initially analyzed by the editorial team of Suprema - Revista de Estudos Constitucionais, to verify its suitability in terms of the journal's editorial line, the formal submission requirements established and announced in this document, the journal's publication policy, and its potential for publication.

If there are any inconsistencies, at the discretion of the editorial team, the authors may be notified to make the necessary adjustments or the submitted text may be immediately disregarded. In this initial phase, similarity, plagiarism and self-plagiarism are also checked using anti-plagiarism software.

After this preliminary analysis, the file without the identification of authorship is forwarded to the Journal's definitive or ad hoc reviewers.

At this stage, the articles are evaluated by two (2) reviewers in a double-blind peer review system, keeping the names of authors and reviewers confidential.

The reviewers are always PhDs affiliated with renowned national/or and foreign higher education institutions, meeting the highest percentage of exogeny indicated by CAPES (Brazilian Coordination for the Improvement of Higher Education Personnel).

In order to prevent possible conflicts of interest, Suprema also adopts the criterion of exogeny between authors and reviewers, not assigning articles to reviewers that have ties with institutions located in the same federative unit as the institutions to which the authors are linked, in addition to also observing the academic background of the author and the reviewer, in order to avoid them having belonged to the same teaching and/or research institutions.

The reviewers may: a) recommend publication without caveats; b) recommend publication with caveats; c) recommend publication in another journal; d) request clarifications from the authors or adjustments to the article for further evaluation; or e) reject the article.

The criteria used in the evaluation form are as follows:

1. Is there any conflict of interest that would prevent you from evaluating the paper?
2. Does the title satisfactorily match the content of the article?
3. Do the keywords satisfactorily match the content of the article?
4. Does the abstract correspond satisfactorily to the content of the article?
5. Does the abstract present the intended objectives, the methodology used, and a summary of the conclusion?
6. Does the introduction outline the research problem investigated and specify the hypotheses presented by the author(s)?
7. Does the article satisfactorily present the methodology used? If so:

• Is the chosen methodology suitable for answering the proposed research problem?
• Is the methodology used satisfactorily by the author(s)?

8. In developing the article, are the theories used to answer the research problem presented?
9. Is the theoretical foundation adopted by the author(s) consistent?
10. Are the technical concepts used satisfactorily explained?
11. Do the results presented at the end of the paper follow the reasoning (empirical and/or theoretical) developed throughout the article?
12. Is there satisfactory bibliographic diversity, considering the thematic scope of the work?
13. In the bibliographical references, are current works on the discussion in question considered?
14. Has the article been written in compliance with the standards of the Portuguese language?
15. Does the author(s) use clear, chain writing with terminological precision?
16. Is the content of the article in line with the criteria of not conveying prejudice and/or defamation and slander that would harm the integrity of the readers and/or individuals cited?
17. How relevant is the article to academic research in its field of study?

If the reviewers make a well-founded recommendation for publication, the article will be accepted and will move on to the phase of analysis by the editors-in-chief as to when it should be published, given the continuous flow of the journal. If the reviewers do not recommend for publication, the article will be rejected. In the event of a deadlock and differing opinions, the article will be sent to a new reviewer. The text will only be approved for future publication if there are two favorable opinions.

If the number of approved articles exceeds the number of articles published in each issue, the Journal's Editorial Team will consider the criterion of exogenous authorship established by CAPES for the final selection, as well as the closest proximity to the thematic scope of the publication.