The present document describes the corporate structure of RBGN – Review of Business Management, the roles of its members and its main decision-making processes.
1 EDITORIAL STRUCTURE
RBGN's editorial structure consists of the following members:
1.1 Chief Editor
1.2 Assistant Editors
1.3 Editorial Board
1.4 Scientific Editorial Board
1.5 Ad hoc Reviewers
1.7 Standards Reviewers
1.8 Editorial Office
2 TASKS OF THE MEMBERS OF THE EDITORIAL STRUCTURE
The tasks of the members of the editorial structure match, where applicable, those outlined by the Good Scientific Publishing Practices promoted by ANPAD – National Association of Graduate Programs in Business Administration, with the support of ANPCONT – National Association of Graduate Programs in Accounting Sciences – [link], and also the criteria, policies and procedures for the admission and permanence of scientific journals of the SciELO Collection Brazil [link]. The tasks described below are those that are perceived as the most relevant ones.
2.1 Chief Editor
The chief editor's tasks are outlined by the Good Scientific Publishing Practices promoted by ANPAD, whose most important aspects are described below. The editor coordinates the reviewer evaluations of submissions, but may delegate that task to an assistant editor or even to a member of the Scientific Editorial Board. The editor is not bound by the reviewers' reports and opinions, but if he needs to oppose them, he must act ethically and based on good judgment. In such an event, the editor needs to contact the reviewers and explain his divergent opinion to them so as to preserve their good relationship and to value their work, rather than act as a distant judge. The editor also needs to make sure that the report deadlines are met. Alternatively, he may suggest a deadline and ask reviewers to accept it or to propose a different one. The editor acts as an intermediary between reviewers and authors, checks the relevance of the changes suggested by reviewers and, where appropriate, accepts the authors' arguments against them. Unless a manuscript shows very serious issues, the editor should not reverse his decision to publish it, nor should his possible successor do so. Following the same criteria applied to other papers, preference should be given to papers or comments that challenge or criticize papers previously published by the review. Only very strong and convincing reasons, which should be explained to the authors of the critiques, should prevent them from being published. Authors whose work was criticized should be given the opportunity to answer. The editor must preserve the confidentiality of personal and corporate data (obtained, e.g., from his role as consultant-entrepreneur). Authors may therefore quite often need to present a written consent signed by everyone involved. The editor shall take all reasonable steps to ensure the quality of the material published and never allow individual interests and institutions that sponsor the review to compromise any academic standards. The editor must be willing to publish corrections, explanations, retractions and apologies, as necessary. The editor has a duty to take rectifying measures if he suspects misconduct. He needs to set up a complaints management system that may be used by anyone to file a complaint and allows the review to answer them without delay. That system needs to be clearly announced in the pages of the review and/or at its website.
2.2 Assistant Editors
Assistant editors assist the Chief editor in his work by, e.g., performing evaluation processes he delegates to them. The tasks they perform in the evaluation process are outlined by the policy defined by the Chief editor's set of assignments. Only the final decision of publishing an paper or not is excluded from their scope of responsibilities. They may have to perform general tasks or be exclusively in charge of the submissions of certain areas (area editors), or of a specific section, such as book reviews (section editors).
2.3 Editorial Board
In accordance with the Good Scientific Publishing Practices promoted by ANPAD, the Editorial Board is in charge of solving issues related to the review's editorial policy. It operates in block (by holding meetings, in‑person or remote). Decisions are taken collectively and occasionally, issues are voted. The board does not get involved with the content of any publication or paper in particular, but is rather in charge of the collection as a whole, establishing the general guidelines that regulate it.
2.4 Scientific Editorial Board
As provided for by the Good Scientific Publishing Practices promoted by ANPAD, the members of the Scientific Editorial Board work individually and are significantly involved with the content of the review's fascicles, more specifically with the uniformity, continuity, quality, and the scientific rigor of everything that's published. RBGN's scientific editorial board comprises the chief editor and the assistant editors.
2.5 Ad hoc Reviewers
The following are specific recommendations for reviewers, as defined by the Good Scientific Publishing Practices promoted by ANPAD. Reviewers who feel they are not sufficiently skilled in a field discussed by a given paper should refuse the task of reviewing it. Regarding the double-blind review process, reviewers must inform the editor if they know any author(s). As for the assistant editors and members of the Scientific Editorial Board, although the authors' identity is never explicitly revealed, they still may identify them based on paper style or content. However, in such an event, there is no need to remove them from the review process (desk review) or to prevent them from suggesting possible reviewers.
Reviewers are given deadlines to send back their reports which they can either acknowledge or renegotiate. Meeting an agreed deadline is a matter of ethics, respect and responsibility. Reviewers are requested to carefully read RBGN's editorial policy and its Instructions to reviewers. Editors may have set out guidelines that reviewers are not familiar with or may partially oppose; they also may suggest changes that go against RBGN's position. To get a first general perception of a paper, reviewers are advised to read it in depth in a single session. Reviewers may mark or take note of a few points during that reading, but should rather aim at getting the gist than focusing on specific aspects. We further recommend resuming the reviewing process three or four days later by thoroughly analyzing the text and elaborating its report simultaneously. Reviewers should pay attention to the fact that differences in paradigm may influence their decision regarding the quality of the manuscript and they should consciously try to avoid that. Reviewers should point out any correctable flaws and recommend solutions. A good reviewer, however, will grant authors enough flexibility so that they may keep writing the paper according to their goals. Reviewers should always take into account the cost-benefit ratio of the changes they request and evaluate if these actually would improve the quality of the paper. Whenever scientifically appropriate, pertinent references should be suggested to authors to improve their manuscript and/or facilitate its reformulation. Reviewers should aim to do their best to point out all the changes deemed necessary during the first revision of the manuscript to avoid making additional suggestions in reformulated versions. If a reviewer receives a manuscript that was corrected based on his/her own recommendations, or on those by other reviewers and by the editors, that reviewer should take into account the suggestions made by other reviewers before issuing a new report. If the manuscript presents serious mistakes, they may be classified as paper shortcomings' in the appropriate section. If that's not possible, the paper must be rejected by stating why those mistakes are uncorrectable. The arguments for the rejection of a manuscript must be stated in a very objective and clear manner.
Proofreaders make sure the texts to be published by RBGN comply with the rules of their original languages.
2.7 Standards Reviewers
Standards reviewers format the texts to be published by RBGN according to its submission guidelines, in accordance with the APA Style.
2.8 Editorial Office
The Editorial Office is in charge of external contacts, such as authors, assessors, and reviewers. It is also responsible for desktop publishing, printing of copies, and for updating data in RBGN's administrative systems.
3 DECISION MAKING
The decision-making processes of the Editorial Governance are relevant to several RBGN instances and establish the standards that rule the relations between the members of the Editorial Structure and external publics. These standards, as far as practicable, proceed from the Good Scientific Publishing Practices promoted by ANPAD, as well as from the Criteria, policy and procedures for admission and permanence of scientific journals of the SciELO Collection Brazil, and, in such an event, are reproduced here. The selection and appointment of the Editor, as well as his dismissal, is performed by the Rector of the FECAP University Center, with the assistance of the Editorial Board. The Editor may be hired either for an indefinite, or a definite period of time. The Editorial Board comprises the Editor and other members representing properly and democratically the interests of: (i) the review's area of knowledge; (ii) the institutions that ensure the scientific credibility of the revue; and (iii) those that support the revue legally. The members of the Scientific Editorial Board are expected to be reliable researchers who are recognized by the academic community. However, there may be both senior researchers to ensure its legitimacy and junior members who may be needed to support new methods and theories that may be employed in the manuscripts. The diversity of origin of the members is an element of utmost importance to ensure the plurality of views concerning the models and theories, thus avoiding monocultural biases, which may also help increase the number of submissions. Assistant editors work tightly together with the chief editor and are significantly involved in the daily routine of the publishing process. They are selected by the editor alone, subject to the regulations of the review. To maintain the review's balance, the renewal process of these instances should always be partial so that its tacit knowledge and the memory of events are preserved. The number of assistant editors and the size of the Scientific Editorial Board is the result of the balance between an acceptable workload for each employee and the level of consistency that results from the work of those experts. Proofreaders and Standards reviewers are selected by the Editor. Members of the Editorial Office are selected by Editor as well, with the assistance of the Rectorate.