Article Evaluation Criteria

Articles submitted to People, Society & Management Review are evaluated according to internationally recognized editorial and scientific standards. The evaluation process considers the relevance of the study, originality, methodological consistency, clarity of writing, and the effective contribution to advancing knowledge in the field.

To guide authors and reviewers, the following evaluation criteria are applied:

Title

  • Must accurately reflect the objective of the article.

Abstract and Keywords

  • Provide a clear, concise, and coherent abstract consistent with the manuscript.

  • Use appropriate keywords, registered in thesauri or specialized dictionaries, to facilitate indexing and retrieval in academic databases.

Introduction

  • Clearly state the research problem and its relevance.

  • Present consistent justifications and contextualize with prior research.

  • Define general and specific objectives, as well as hypotheses (when applicable).

  • Indicate research design and potential contribution to knowledge.

Theoretical Framework

  • Reflect the state of the art of the topic investigated.

  • Establish logical or empirical relationships supporting propositions or hypotheses.

  • Present an updated literature review, including recent studies and, when appropriate, classic works.

  • Demonstrate a critical dialogue among cited authors.

Method and Analysis

  • Provide a detailed description of the research method and justify its adequacy.

  • Ensure the analysis is profound and coherent with the chosen method.

  • For bibliographic research, explain types of sources and selection criteria.

  • For empirical research, describe research site, sample, instruments, and procedures, in compliance with field standards.

Results

  • Relate results to objectives and hypotheses established in the introduction.

  • Present complete and consistent data according to methodology.

  • Use tables and figures that are clear, self-explanatory, and not redundant.

Discussion and Conclusion

  • Reflect findings in light of the current scientific literature.

  • Provide a coherent discussion aligned with objectives and hypotheses.

  • Highlight contributions of the study and gaps addressed.

  • Explicitly state limitations and suggest future research.

Editing and Style

  • Ensure clear, objective, and concise academic writing.

  • Comply with APA style (or the standard required by the journal).

  • Avoid spelling or grammatical errors.

  • Maintain a text structure that favors comprehension and scientific communication.

Note: These criteria guide both the desk review and the peer review process, ensuring transparency and editorial quality.

 

The evaluation and revision of articles are crucial for the quality of journals and scientific literature. Therefore, we request that PSM Review reviewers rigorously adhere to the role of scientific article reviewers, following the Best Practices of Scientific Publication by ANPAD (National Association for Graduate Studies and Research in Administration).