Peer review process

The Journal of the Higher School of the Federal Public Prosecutor's Office (RESMPU) adopts a peer review process to ensure the quality, relevance, and alignment of texts with its editorial line, in compliance with the Editorial Policy for Technical-Scientific Publications (Ordinance No. 137, of June 17, 2024).

         1. Preliminary analysis and admission

All submitted texts undergo preliminary admission verification to assess their compliance with editorial standards and formal submission requirements.

In this stage, verification of similarity, plagiarism, and self-plagiarism is also conducted using a specific tool. Texts that do not meet the editorial guidelines may be returned to the authors for adjustments or, as the case may be, disregarded.

         2. Peer blind review

Texts deemed suitable in the preliminary analysis are forwarded for evaluation by two reviewers, under an anonymous review system, preserving confidentiality regarding the identity of authors and reviewers.

The selection of reviewers considers criteria of academic qualification, exogeneity, and absence of conflicts of interest, with a view to ensuring impartiality and evaluation quality.

         3. Evaluation criteria

In assessing the text, the reviewers consider, among other aspects:

  • institutional relevance;
  • scope and general interest;
  • originality and novelty;
  • consistency and rigor of scientific contente;
  • thematic and bibliographic updating;
  • contribution to the field of knowledge;
  • potential for reflection on legal reality;
  • compliance with the technical presentation parameters of the paper.

    4. Possible decisions

The reviewers’ analysis may result in:

  • recommendation for publication, with or without reservations;
  • request for clarifications from the author or changes to the article for a new evaluation; or
  • rejection of the paper.

         5. Impasse between reviewers

In the event of an impasse or divergent opinions between the reviewers, the article will be forwarded to a third reviewer, who will make the decision and may also suggest adjustments to the author before issuing the final opinion.

         6. Final approval

The text will only be approved for publication upon obtaining two favorable opinions.