FACILITATE THE PUBLICATION OF YOUR MANUSCRIPT IN e³

Before submitting your manuscript, you should try to answer the following questions:

Contents:

• Does the manuscript fall within the scope of the journal?
• Is the text clear, concise and accessible?
• Does the title, abstract and keywords reveal the key points of your manuscript, and does it not exceed the word limit?
• Do you have written authorizations for the reproduction of figures and pictures that are under copyright?

Structure:

• The text size conforms to that recommended by e³?
• Does the Identification Form include the name and affiliation of all authors?
• It is formatted according to the “Guidelines for authors”?
• Are all references made in the body of the text, captions and notes included in your bibliographic references?
• Does your manuscript meet all anonymization standards in accordance with our journal's peer-review policy?

 

WRITE AN ARTICLE FOR A SCIENTIFIC JOURNAL

The writing of a scientific article is the culmination of continuous and hard intellectual work. Sometimes the authors even have all the work organized, know what they want to address, have the data to work with, but they do not know how to report it in a coherent and organized text.

It all comes from the author’s willingness to learn.

The basis of any scientific work must be ethics. The work done so far should be recognized and not plagiarized. All criticism must be accepted.

The wording must be clear and without grammatical errors. Any article submitted for review is reviewed. Thus, the writing must be appropriate to the situation. For example, if it is to be published in a scientific journal, the methodology must be addressed, the means used; in the end, the article must provide all the indications so that it can be reproduced by another author. If it is to be presented at a congress or a specialized journal, the contents and language ​​must be adapted. In short, the language used must be suitable for the purpose.

The scientific article reflects all the work done. All phases must be recorded, all documentation generated must be organized and easy to consult. It is this organized register that will allow the article to be written naturally and without losing its original focus.

As a rule, each scientific journal has its structure defined and it is easy to adapt the study to this structure.

THE ABSTRACT: the abstract must be a clear, concise, and informative summary of the article's content, designed to spark the reader’s interest in exploring the full paper. It should present the main objectives, methods, results, and conclusions directly, without lengthy introductions to the topic or detailed descriptions of the activities carried out. To maintain quality and objectivity, avoid bibliographic references, citations, excessive abbreviations, or uncommon symbols.

The abstract should include:

• Context and Problem: A brief description of the general context and the problem addressed in the article. Explain why this problem is relevant to the field and how it aligns with the journal's objectives.
• Main Objective: Clearly state the study’s aim or the research questions addressed by the article.
  Methodology: An overview of the methods or approaches used, focusing on their relevance to achieving the study’s objectives.
  Key Results: Highlight the main findings, emphasizing how they contribute to solving the problem or advancing the field.
  Conclusion and Impact: Briefly explain the most important implications or contributions of the study to practice, theory, or research in the field.

Additional tips for authors:

• Clarity and Precision: Use clear and straightforward language, avoiding technical jargon that may hinder understanding.
• Length: The abstract should be approximately 200 words, depending on the article type and format, as specified in the journal’s guidelines.
• Coherence and Structure: Ensure the abstract has a logical flow that guides the reader from the introduction of the problem to the solution provided.
  Style: Write in the past tense for results and in the present tense for conclusions or general implications. Use short, direct sentences.

 

THE INTRODUCTION: in a first phase, you should try to explain the importance of the theme. Then you should look in the literature if there is something that answers the starting point and what is currently on the topic. It must then be seen what solutions are currently valid for the problem itself. Based on this, you should explain what is the solution presented and, finally, the conclusion must coincide with the justification of the theme.

BODY OF THE WORK: in the body of the work, the problem to be solved must be described; why the situation is considered relevant and why it is important to resolve it. Then, the solution should be described, what was done to solve the problem, describing the methodology used.

After the described methodology, the results must be presented, proving what was previously described. One should check what already exists and compare it with the results obtained, showing the contribution of the article.

CONCLUSION: the conclusions drawn with the study must be presented. The conclusion must respond to the topic addressed in the introduction. It is necessary to verify what the literature has concluded and what the study allows to conclude; whether it meets or disputes what already exists. At this stage, the limitations that were identified when developing the study should be presented. The conclusion must be visible even to those who have not read the body of the article. When someone is interested in an article, they read the title, the summary and the conclusion. If they like it, they read the body of the text.

If you use any term in the conclusion that was only used in the body of the work, the reader (s) is / are unaware. If the conclusion is stimulating, the reader (s) will have an interest in the body of the work and will want to know how they arrived at that conclusion, if they used their own software, which sample and methodology was used.

 

WHAT YOU SHOULD KNOW AND EXPECT WITH THE PEER REVIEW AT e³

The evaluation process of manuscripts submitted to e³ consists of two stages. The first is a preliminary evaluation by the Editor-in-Chief and the Assistants Editors, examining the adequacy of the work for the journal’s editorial line and makes the preliminary evaluation (Desk Review). The second is the review itself, which encompasses three distinct peer review systems:

• Single-blind peer review: anonymous reviewer/disclosed author.
• Double-blind peer review: anonymous reviewer/anonymous author.
• Open peer review: disclosed reviewer/disclosed author.

Authors designate the preferred review model during or following manuscript submission. In the absence of a specified preference, the default protocol is a double-blind peer review process.

What are the reviewers looking for?

The evaluation considers, primarily, the scientific quality of the text, focusing on the following aspects:

Topicality of the topic;

Originality of the work;

Relevance and theoretical consistency of the text for the development of the area of ​​knowledge;

Quality of the theoretical framework used;

Quality of writing and organization of the text;

Contribution of work to administrative knowledge and / or administrative action in organizations;

Methodology used: property, quality, level of sophistication;

Quality of data analysis and discussion (if applicable);

Conclusions: achievement, foundation and consistency.