Evaluation process

The evaluation of articles submitted to the Journal comprises the following stages:

1. Preliminary Evaluation

All submissions undergo a preliminary evaluation conducted by the Journal’s Editorial Office to verify compliance with the mandatory formal requirements established by the Editorial Board. These requirements are set forth in the sections concerning the “Submission Requirements” and “Guidelines for Authors” and include the manuscript’s conformity with the Journal’s thematic and methodological scope, as defined in its “Editorial Scope".

Articles that do not comply with these requirements will be returned to the authors with the information necessary to make the required adjustments, should they wish to proceed with the evaluation process.

Accordingly, in order to expedite the editorial process, authors are advised to carefully review all applicable guidelines before submission. Following submission, all communication should preferably be conducted through the OJS platform.

2. Double-Anonymous Peer Review

Once the requirements of the preliminary stage have been met, the manuscript proceeds to double-anonymous peer review, under which the identities of both authors and reviewers are kept confidential.

The editorial team is responsible for maintaining anonymity between the parties in order to safeguard impartiality and objectivity throughout the process, as well as for moderating any potentially offensive comments when necessary.

The manuscript is simultaneously submitted to two external reviewers with recognized expertise in the relevant subject area, for the purpose of assessing the quality of its scholarly and legal contribution, particularly with regard to: (a) the relevance of and adherence to the subject matter; (b) the originality and pertinence of the research problem; (c) methodological clarity and logical structure; and (d) technical rigor and coherence of the legal argumentation.

Reviewers may recommend one of four decisions: (a) accept; (b) accept subject to minor revisions; (c) accept subject to substantive revisions; or (d) reject, in accordance with the criteria established in the objective review form, available at: https://revista.trf3.jus.br/index.php/rtrf3/pt_BR/libraryFiles/downloadPublic/4.

In the event of a tie or substantial divergence between the reviewers’ recommendations, the manuscript may be submitted to a third reviewer or, where appropriate, to a member of the Editorial Board for an additional review, for the purpose of assisting in the final editorial decision.

The general deadlines applicable to reviewers are as follows: one week to accept the review invitation, followed by an additional four weeks to complete the review. Once this period has elapsed, the editorial team will request submission of the review within a further two weeks, unless the reviewer requests an extension. If the review is not submitted within this additional period, the editorial team may, at its discretion, grant a further extension or replace the reviewer, taking into account the Journal’s editorial needs.

Following the initial anonymous review, authors and reviewers may be offered the option of disclosing their identities for voluntary interaction aimed at improving the manuscript. Such disclosure must be reciprocal and expressly recorded in the respective submission form completed by the author and review form completed by the reviewer.

3. Final Editorial Decision

Upon receipt of the reviews, the manuscript is examined by the editorial team, and the reviewers’ recommendations are forwarded to the authors for their consideration and appropriate action, according to the agreed schedule. As a general rule, authors are allowed up to thirty days for formal revisions and up to sixty days for more substantial revisions. These deadlines may be extended at the discretion of the editorial team.

Following peer review, all revisions to the manuscript must be made using the “Track Changes” function in Microsoft Word, in order to facilitate the reassessment of the revised manuscript. Authors may decline to adopt reviewers’ recommendations, provided that they offer specific justification.

Upon receipt of the revised manuscript, the editorial team may, where necessary, return the article to the same reviewers who assessed the previous version or refer it to other reviewers before making the final decision to accept or reject the manuscript.

The final editorial decision rests with the Federal Appellate Judge serving as Director of the Journal, taking into consideration the reviews received, any statements submitted by the authors, and the revisions made, and observing the academic and editorial criteria previously established in the Journal’s editorial policies, independently of institutional, administrative, or any other interests.

The final decision may be subject to a request for reconsideration by the author, by means of a reasoned request submitted to revista@trf3.jus.br. The request must objectively identify any error, material inconsistency, or supervening circumstance that may justify reconsideration of the decision. The Editorial Board may be consulted for consideration of the request, depending on the nature of the issue raised.

Manuscripts that have received a final rejection decision may not be resubmitted in the same version. Any subsequent submission must contain substantial changes in relation to the previously rejected version and must address, where applicable, the issues and grounds raised during the previous review process.

Any suspected conflict of interest that could compromise the objectivity or impartiality of the review must be promptly reported to the Journal’s Editorial Office.

4. Procedures Following Acceptance

Once accepted, articles are forwarded to the final typesetting and proofreading stage, conducted by the editorial team of the Journal’s Editorial Office. This stage includes grammatical and orthographic proofreading, verification of legislation and case law, and the necessary adjustments to comply with the Journal’s graphic design and editorial standards.

The revised text is sent to the authors for approval prior to publication. At this stage, additions to the manuscript are not permitted, except in duly justified exceptional circumstances.

In some cases, the review process may take longer than anticipated. Accordingly, it is not possible to provide an exact estimate for the acceptance or publication of submitted articles.

In order to ensure transparency in the editorial process, the principal stages and dates of the editorial workflow, as well as the identity of the editor responsible during the relevant period, are disclosed at the end of each published article.

In addition, at the end of each annual volume of the Journal, a list is published containing the names of all reviewers who effectively participated in the evaluation of articles during that year.

Any questions concerning the submission and evaluation requirements may be addressed by email to revista@trf3.jus.br.

Any matters not expressly addressed herein shall be resolved by the Journal’s Editorial Board, chaired by the Federal Appellate Judge serving as Director of the Journal.