Editorial Flow

Editorial Workflow

The RJTDH: Labor and Human Development Law Journal – Journal of the Regional Labor Prosecutor’s Office accepts submissions of original scientific articles and book reviews. Translations of previously published articles or reviews are also eligible, provided they are rendered into a language different from the original and accompanied by permission from the original publisher; such pieces appear in a dedicated “Translations” section at the sole discretion of the Editors‑in‑Chief.

RJTDH employs, as a rule for all submissions, the double‑blind review system by peers holding the same or higher academic degree as the most senior author. However, up to 20 % of published items in any issue may be approved solely by the Editors‑in‑Chief on grounds of exceptional scientific merit and relevance to the journal’s editorial policy. Any further exceptions to the double‑blind review will be determined case by case and announced in advance by the Editorial Team.

Below is an overview of the editorial workflow for all submissions to RJTDH.

Phase 1. Submission

Submission is understood as the act of formalizing the intention to publish a scientific article or a review of a scientific work in RJTDH, encompassing the registration of information about the authors and co-authors of the submitted manuscript and the presentation of its content.

Registration in the system and subsequent access via login and password are mandatory for submitting manuscripts as well as for monitoring the progress of the editorial process.

Once the submission is complete, registered authors will receive an automatic email confirming that the paper has been submitted.

It is the authors' responsibility to correctly and fully complete the necessary data so that the submission can trigger the evaluative editorial flow. The absence of personal and professional information—such as a brief professional biography and links to profiles on the Lattes Curriculum and ORCiD platforms—as well as communication data (email address) for all authors may result in immediate rejection of the submission, at the Editors’ discretion. The inclusion of complete author data is essential in order to assess, at this stage, whether they meet the qualification requirements of the Journal, in accordance with the guidelines for authors.

Therefore, as soon as the article is received, the first step taken by the Editors is to verify: (i) whether all authors are registered in the submission and whether their personal information is available in the system; (ii) whether the declaration of authorship/co-authorship has been attached; (iii) whether the article complies with the Journal's template. If any of these criteria have not been met, the authors may be notified immediately to provide additional information, at the discretion of the editors.

All notifications to authors, throughout the editorial flow, will be sent to the email addresses registered at the time of submission.

Immediately after submission is completed, the authors will receive an automatic email message confirming that the manuscript has been submitted.

Phase 2. Preliminary evaluation (desk review)

The preliminary evaluation (desk review), conducted by one of the Editors (Chief or Associate Editors), is the first evaluation of the submitted manuscript, aiming to analyze the formal and content compatibility of the submission with RJTDH’s editorial policy.

In this initial stage, the following attributes are examined:

1. Thematic adherence: compatibility of the theme and its approach with the editorial policy adopted by RJTDH;

2. Originality: confirmation of the manuscript's originality through the use of an anti-plagiarism electronic tool;

3. Objective submission conditions: strict observance of the submission rules and author guidelines established by RJTDH regarding the form and content of articles and reviews.

After analysis, the preliminary evaluator, during the desk review, must answer the following questions, accompanied by possible answer choices and text boxes for additional comments:

- Is the text original and free of plagiarism? (provide evidence)

- Does the theme fail to observe any of the premises that make up RJTDH’s editorial policy? (if so, justify)

- Which formatting rules indicated in the "Author Guidelines" are observed in the submitted text?

- RJTDH’s editorial policy prioritizes the social phenomenon of labor as an element of human development. Is the manuscript compatible with such editorial policy? (if not, provide evidence)

Only in cases where it is impossible to proceed with the submission analysis due to rejection at the preliminary evaluation stage will authors be notified, by email, of the decision and its reasons.

There will be no notification to the authors in case of approval at the preliminary evaluation stage, since the editorial flow can be monitored by the authors at any time through electronic access (via login) to the information on completed and ongoing editorial stages. To do so, once logged in, the author must click on the "Active Submissions" field. Upon approval, the manuscript moves on to the next phase.

RJTDH estimates the completion of the preliminary evaluation within 30 (thirty) days from the date of submission.

Phase 3. Technical-scientific merit evaluation (double-blind review)

Once approved in the preliminary evaluation stage, the manuscript will be subjected to a double-blind review process, conducted by at least two (2) specialists in the area of knowledge related to the manuscript's topic, necessarily external to the Editorial Team and holding academic degrees equal to or higher than the authors', with a preference for reviewers holding a doctoral degree.

The selection of reviewers (ad hoc referees) is the responsibility of the Chief and Associate Editors, observing a maximum of two (2) designations per reviewer per published issue and, whenever possible, the recommendation to avoid assigning reviewers for manuscripts intended for the same issue in which they have also submitted an article.

All manuscripts submitted under the continuous flow section will be evaluated under a double-blind review system, meaning that reviewers will not know the identities of the authors and vice versa. This rule admits the following rare exceptions, at the discretion of the Chief Editors: (i) invited authors’ articles, not subject to evaluation; and (ii) submissions for special sections (e.g., dossiers), which may admit a blind review system — that is, only the reviewers know the authors' identities. In the latter case, the adoption of the exceptional procedure must be publicly announced in advance.

As a condition for accepting the task and submitting the review, all reviewers must declare the absence of any conflict of interest regarding the requested activity. Reviewers will be informed that "conflicts of interest may be of a personal, commercial, political, ideological, academic, or financial nature. Conflicts of interest may occur when reviewers have interests that could influence the evaluation of manuscripts. Although RJTDH operates under a double-blind review system, reviewers must inform the Editors of any conflicts of interest that could influence their manuscript evaluation and declare themselves unqualified to review it."

After examining the manuscript, reviewers must answer an evaluation form comprising the following questions (which may be adapted for a thematic dossier submission), accompanied by possible answer choices and text boxes for additional comments:

1. Does the text clearly problematize the proposed topic?

2. Is the content innovative and/or does it bring any contribution or advancement to the topic?

3. Is the manuscript appropriate to the theme proposed by the Journal (legal and related fields' reflections on the application of Law in labor relations, aiming at the effectiveness of constitutionally and internationally guaranteed social rights of workers)?

4. Is the title appropriate to the manuscript’s content?

5. Is the title clear and appealing to RJTDH’s target audience?

6. If the title is not satisfactory, does the reviewer suggest any modification?

7. Do the abstract and keywords correspond to the manuscript’s content?

8. Are the manuscript’s objectives sufficiently clear?

9. Is the methodology employed adequate to the objectives pursued in the manuscript?

10. Does the manuscript adequately achieve its proposed objectives?

11. Does the reasoning in the manuscript have a logical sequence and clear structure?

12. Is the writing clear, precise, and engaging for the reader?

13. Is the quality of the theoretical framework compatible with a postgraduate level?

14. Are there suggestions for including citations and/or references?

Finally, the evaluation form will allow the reviewer to choose one of the following recommendations to the Editor:

1. I recommend the publication of the manuscript

2. I recommend the publication of the manuscript with reservations (must mention them)

3. I recommend modifications to the manuscript, for a new round of reviews (must present justification)

4. I do not recommend the publication of the manuscript (must present justification)

When requesting an ad hoc review, RJTDH will set, as a standard, a maximum period of 20 (twenty) days for submission of the review. A shorter period or an extension may be decided by the Editors. In case of unjustified delay, the reviewer may be replaced at the Editors’ discretion.

Ad hoc reviews aim to assist the Editors in forming their conviction regarding the pertinence of publishing the submitted manuscript based on its technical-scientific merit. However, the final decision on the approval of the manuscript rests with the Editors. In the event of a significant discrepancy between the reviewers’ opinions on the same manuscript, the Editors may request a new ad hoc review from a third reviewer.

The reservations eventually raised by reviewers and accepted by the Editors will be communicated to the authors by email, assigning a deadline for compliance and submission of a revised version of the manuscript. The content of the reviews will be made available to the authors through their access to the submission flow on RJTDH’s electronic platform ("Active Submissions" field).

The updated manuscript file must be uploaded by the authors to the electronic platform via login, accessing "Active Submission" and then the "Reviews" tab.

Editors expect authors to address all points raised; exceptionally, justifications for not complying with certain requests may be accepted, at the Editors’ discretion.

If the Editors decide to reject the manuscript based on the review results, the authors will be notified of the decision and its grounds by email.

In case of approval, the authors will also be notified by email.

RJTDH makes its best efforts so that the double-blind evaluation stage — from the appointment of reviewers to the Editors’ final decision — does not exceed 120 (one hundred and twenty) days.

Phase 4. Editing

Once approved, the manuscript will undergo spelling revision and alignment with the editorial rules adopted by RJTDH, to be carried out by a specialized person designated among the Editorial Team members.

Upon completion of the editing work, the authors will be notified by email and granted a short deadline set by the Editorial Team to review the edited version of the manuscript. They may also be asked to provide additional information or minor textual adjustments requested during the revision process.

Access to the edited version of the manuscript is granted through login on the RJTDH platform, under "Active Submissions," then the "Copyediting" tab, in the "Edited Text" area.

At the same time, authors may request minor orthographic corrections or data updates. The same notification will request an unequivocal statement from the authors regarding whether:

1. the manuscript remains unpublished, meaning it has not been disseminated by any other means (book, journal, magazine, blog, etc.);

2. they approve the edited version of the manuscript and authorize its publication, either as presented or with minor updates, if accepted by the Editors.

Such responses may be sent either by replying to the received email or by inserting a message and new file on RJTDH’s platform under "Active Submissions," "Copyediting" tab, "Copyediting Discussion" area.

If there is no confirmation of originality or effective participation of all co-authors, the manuscript will not be published, and the editorial flow will be closed, with proper email notification to the authors.

RJTDH estimates that the editing phase should conclude within 45 (forty-five) days.

Phase 5. Layout design and publication

Once the edited text is approved, the manuscript proceeds to layout design, aiming to conform it to the standard graphic design used by RJTDH.

After layout design is completed, the manuscript is registered with a Digital Object Identifier (DOI) and published on the Journal's online platform.

RJTDH estimates that layout design and publication of the manuscript should require around 30 (thirty) days. However, the exact moment of publication is solely at the Editors’ discretion, who may decide to postpone publication to a later issue if necessary to comply with evaluation criteria or recommendations set by external editorial evaluation bodies or indexing bases, such as criteria related to exogeneity.