Reviewers Guidelines

Reviewer Guidelines

1. Introduction

Revista de Direito Contábil Fiscal thanks you for your collaboration. Peer review is the main quality-control instrument of scholarly communication: it ensures the rigor of what is published and helps authors improve their work. These guidelines explain how the journal conducts peer review, what is expected of the review report and the ethical rules the reviewer must observe.

The journal adopts double-blind peer review: authors and reviewers do not know each other’s identity. Each manuscript receives at least two review reports; in case of disagreement, the handling editor invites a third reviewer or issues the tie-breaking report themselves. The final decision rests with the Editor-in-Chief, who takes the reports into account but is not bound by their sum.

2. Before accepting the invitation

• Expertise: accept only if the topic falls within your area of expertise.
• Deadline: respond to the invitation within 7 days and accept only if you can submit the report within 28 days. If you need more time, let the editor know before accepting.
• Conflict of interest: decline the invitation if you have already read or reviewed the manuscript (including for another journal), if you are developing competing work on the same subject or if you have a professional or financial interest in the topic (for example, involvement in a case or matter analyzed in the text). When in doubt, consult the editor.
• Identification of authorship: if you recognize the authorship (for example, from a preprint or a presentation at an event), inform the editor; if there is a conflict of interest, decline the invitation. Do not try to identify the authors.

3. Confidentiality and use of artificial intelligence

• The manuscript and the review report are confidential: do not share them, do not discuss them with third parties without the editor’s authorization and do not use their content before publication.
• Uploading the manuscript or the review report, in whole or in part, to publicly accessible artificial intelligence tools or to tools that use the data for training is prohibited.
• The use of secure institutional tools solely to revise the wording of your own report must be disclosed to the editor. The assessment of merit is always carried out by the reviewer.
• When submitting annotated files, remove your personal data from the file properties and from the comments (in Word: File > Info > Inspect Document).

4. How to review – Review Form

The journal’s review form, completed in OJS, assigns one of the ratings below to each of 5 criteria:

• Superior
• Adequate
• Inadequate

Use the questions below as a guide:

1. Relevance of the topic

Assess the importance of the topic addressed, its timeliness and potential impact on the academic community; originality of the contribution.

• Is the problem relevant to the interface between Tax Law and Accounting?
• Does the work make a new contribution or merely reproduce existing knowledge?

2. Quality of the approach

Assess how the author addressed the proposed topic in terms of argumentation and legal and accounting reasoning.

• Are the problem, the objective and the thesis explicit?
• Is the argumentation consistent and does it address opposing positions?
• Do the conclusions follow from the development?

3. Quality of the text

Assess the writing (clarity, coherence and cohesion) and the adequacy of the title, abstract and keywords.

• Is the text clear and well organized?
• Do the title, abstract and keywords represent the content, including in the English version?

4. Quality of the research

Assess the method employed, examining whether the sources and references were satisfactory and sufficient and whether they are correctly cited.

• Is the method described and appropriate to the problem?
• Are the legal scholarship, legislation, case law, accounting standards and data sufficient and up to date?
• Are there references listed without citation, or citations without a reference?

5. Alignment with the editorial line

Check whether the object of the research is linked to the general theme adopted by the journal.

• Does the work fit the journal’s focus, scope and areas of interest (Editorial Policy, items “Focus and scope” and “Areas of interest”, in About the Journal)?

5. How to write the review report

OJS provides two comment fields:

Suggested structure for the report to the authors:

1. Summary: in a few lines, the objective, thesis and contribution of the work, as you understood them.
2. Strengths: what is most valuable in the work.
3. Major issues: questions of merit that need to be resolved (problem, method, argumentation, sources and conclusions), indicating the relevant passage.
4. Minor issues: wording, formatting, citations and references.
5. Suggestions: concrete ways to improve.

• Be objective, respectful and constructive; criticize the text, never the authors.
• Support your remarks and indicate the page, section or paragraph.
• Do not rewrite the work or require the authors to adopt your theoretical position.
• Suggest only relevant references; do not require citation of your own work or of the journal without scientific justification (coercive citation).
• Keep the report, the ratings assigned and the recommendation consistent with one another.

6. Recommendation in OJS

At the end, choose one of the recommendations available in the system:

7. Second round of review

When the authors submit a new version, the reviewer receives the revised manuscript and the response letter. Check whether each point has been addressed or justified; avoid raising new issues that could have been pointed out in the first round, unless they arise from the changes. Opening a new round of review is the editor’s decision.

8. Ethical issues

If you suspect plagiarism, fabrication or manipulation of data or sources, duplicate publication, citation manipulation or other misconduct, inform the editor in the “For editor only” field, providing the elements that support the suspicion. Do not investigate on your own or contact the authors: the investigation follows the COPE flowcharts (Editorial Policy, item “Investigation of misconduct”, in Ethics and Integrity).

9. Open review

With the consent of the authors and the reviewer, the identity of the parties may be disclosed and the reviewer’s name or the review report published with the article. The reviewer is free to decide whether to accept this modality; declining does not affect the invitation.

10. Recognition

• The journal issues a certificate of participation for each completed review and annually publishes the list of the year’s reviewers, without linking them to the manuscripts (Editorial Policy, item “Reviewer recognition”, in Editorial process and peer review).
• Reviewers may record the activity in ORCID.

11. Step by step in OJS

1. Open the invitation link or log in at https://revistas.apet.org.br/index.php/rdcf with your username and password.
2. In the Request step, read the abstract and accept or decline the invitation; declare any conflict of interest when requested.
3. In the Guidelines step, read these guidelines.
4. In the Download & Review step, download the manuscript, complete the form and the comment fields and, if you wish, attach an annotated file (without your personal data).
5. Choose the recommendation and complete the submission of the review.

12. Reviewer checklist

• I have no conflict of interest with the manuscript, or I have disclosed it to the editor.
• I have maintained confidentiality and have not uploaded the manuscript to AI tools.
• I have completed all the criteria in the form.
• I have written well-supported and constructive comments to the authors.
• I have used the “For editor only” field for confidential matters.
• The recommendation is consistent with the ratings and with the report.
• I have removed my personal data from any attached files.
• I have met the agreed deadline.

Contact

Questions about the review: rdcf@apet.org.br.