Instructions to reviewers

1. Access the site of the journal with your username and password.

2. Sign in to user’s page as REVIEWER.

3. On the page ACTIVE SUBMISSIONS, click on the submission’s title.

4. On the page REVIEW there will be information about the submission and the review deadline.

5. On the bottom of the same page, on REVIEW STEPS there will be displayed the 5 steps that should be followed in order to review the submission.

6. In step 3, click on file.doc in SUBMISSION and save it in your computer for later review.

7. The next steps are: 4, 5 e 6. In step 4, click on icon REVIEW FORM, which will appear in another window. Fill in the review form and click on save, by the end of the form.

8. In step 5, if there are comments on the text that is being reviewed, click on BROWSE to find the file and then click on TRANSFER in order to later editor’s/author’s access.

9. In step 6, select a recommendation: accept or decline, and click on SUBMIT THE REVIEW TO EDITOR.

For the preparation of the review, we suggest you follow the criteria below:

1. The text’s formal presentation: grammatically correct writing, clear and intelligible exposition, understandably formulated argumentation; good title formulation, subtitles,

abstract and keywords in Portuguese and English, notes, references (pertinence of the use of references according to ABNT standards), figures and images (of sufficient quality for viewing and/or printing, objective subtitles);

2. The text must include research content;

3. The characterization of the theme should be meaningful to the field of communication and the object should be defined clearly in the text, with well elucidated research goals;

4. The methodology should be explicit and appropriate for the object of research; and

5. The references to the subject and the object of research should be adequate, sufficient and up-to-date. The text must not exceed 50.000 characters (with spaces).

6. When reviewing, please do not choose the option “For editor only”. Instead, use "For author and editor".

7. If the text needs revisions, there are two options: mandatory corrections or resubmission for evaluation. This second option should be indicated if the volume of revisions is large. If, however, the manuscript requires basically rewriting of the text, the reviewer should refuse it.

8. If the review has highlighted excerpts, it is because other reviewers who asked for revisions previously evaluated the text.

9. Don't approve low priority manuscripts. The journal seeks to publish high quality texts, according to the parameters indicated in items 1 to 5 above.