Submission

Authorship

We accept reviews from professionals in higher education, professionals in basic education and undergraduate and graduate students (in specialization courses, masters and doctorates).

Content

Reviews must express evaluations of books or dossiers from academic journals in History.

The evaluation is understood as assigning value (or criticism) on two levels: the first covers the value of the nature and/or uses of at least one of the following elements of the reviewed work: problematization, object/theme, literature review , sources, methods, conclusions (theses or hypotheses) and composition (information architecture or style) and actual or potential uses.

The second level of value attribution should focus on meeting the objectives announced in the reviewed work.

When possible, the reviews may present a contextualization of the work evaluated in the trajectory of the author/coordinator and/or the place of the theme/problem conveyed in the work, in relation to the respective scientific domain.

Rhetorical structure

The title of the review must not literally replicate the text of the reviewed work. It must begin with a noun or verb and not exceed four words.

The beginning of the text should not contain epigraphs or direct quotes.

The first paragraph should inform about the theme, problem or object (announced by the work in a brief description), the title of the work, name and other data considered relevant as to the authorship of the reviewed work.

The second paragraph should present the context of the work, theme, object or problem (if applicable).

The last paragraph should present a summary evaluation of the work, prioritizing the fulfillment (or not) of the objectives announced in the reviewed work and/or advice to potential readers of the work. As in the opening paragraph, the last sentence of the review should not contain direct quotes.

From the third to the penultimate paragraph, the composition of the review is free. Even the most common plans are accepted, such as the presentation of a summary of the central ideas of the chapter(s), part(s) or article(s), followed by a critique of said ideas and eventual contributions to the respective scientific field.

It is necessary to transcribe the summary of the reviewed work (without the page number), the biobibliographic data and the photograph of the reviewers, according to the model below:

Summary of Xxxxxxx

• Preface
  Introduction
  Chapter 1 Xxxxxxx
  Chapter 2 Xxxxxxx [...]
  Conclusions
  References

reviewer

Xxxxxx Xxxxxx – PhD in Xxxxxx from the Xxxxxx University of Xxxxxx (XXXX), professor in the Department of Xxxxxx at the Xxxxxx University (XXXX). She has published, among other works, Xxxxxx (Link), Xxxxxx (Link) and Xxxxxx (Link). Orcid: xxxxx; Email: xxxxx; Facebook: xxxxx; Instagram: xxxxx.

To cite this review

[AUTHORSHIP]. [Title: subtitle]. [Edition]. [City]: [Publisher], [Year of publication]. [Number of pages].

Dimensions

From the title of the review to the end of the reviewer's resume, the text must contain between 1200 and 1500 words.

Formatting

Times New Roman font, single-spaced, left-aligned.

The italics used are italic (for published work) and bold (for terms in a foreign language). Titles of chapters and articles must be written between quotation marks (no bold and no italics).

Direct quotes, internal to the reviewed work, should inform only the page number, placed in parentheses. Ex: “(p.34)”. For direct citations external to the reviewed text, you must inform self/date/page with authorship in lower case. Ex: “(Oliveira, 2021, p.34)”.

The complete references of the reviewed work, the sources and the literature used in the review must be listed at the end of the text. The names of any illustrators, designers, compilers, translators, technical proofreaders, prefaces or presenters must be included. The organization of referencing elements must comply with NBR 6023/2018.

Explanatory notes should come at the end of the text. with any notes identified by Arabic numerals, in the body of the text and in the text of the notes, which will be placed at the end of the main text “[1]”.

Data on authorship of the review should be limited to: maximum title, institutional affiliation; area of specialization (within the referred institution); title of up to three authorial works, accompanied by the respective electronic addresses that enable consultation by the reader of the review, electronic mail address (email) and registrations in social networks (@).

Manuscripts must be accompanied by an image of the authorship that will be posted to the left of the penultimate paragraph of the post in miniature format, next to the biographical data and the references of the review. The final format of the author's portrait (bust) is 225 x 150 pixels.

Observations regarding the image of the authorship of the reviewed book - By default, we use the best resolution image available on the internet. In the case of more than one author, we used the best resolution image in the

top of the post and low resolution ones in the body of the review, in thumbnail format. In the absence of authorship files with good resolution, we will use an image suggested by the content of the review, which may even be a clipping of the cover of the book. If the reviewer or the author of the reviewed work disagrees with the image used at the top of the post, they can send a better resolution image for immediate replacement.

Review evaluation criteria

The reviews are screened by two referees for the evaluation of the quality of the work, parameterized in this Guide for reviewers.

1. Does the review inform about the title of the work and the name of the author of the work in the first paragraph?
   Does the review inform about the theme and/or problem of the work in the first or second paragraph?
2. Does the review inform the place of the work (theme, the problem or the theses) in the field of knowledge or in the author's trajectory, in the first or second paragraph?
3. The review presents an evaluation of at least two of the mandatory items – problematization, literature review, sources, methods, conclusions (theses or hypotheses), composition (grammatical and/or stylistic) and actual or potential uses, including an evaluation of compliance with the objectives announced in the reviewed work?
4. Does the review present a summary evaluation of the work in the last paragraph, considering the fulfillment (or not) of the objectives announced by the author(s) or coordinator(s) of the reviewed work?
5. Does the review present a summary evaluation of the work, in the last paragraph, considering the value of the text for the respective academic field and/or for the potential reader)?

Approved within 30 days, they are sent to the authors for eventual adjustments or agreement on the adaptation proposals promoted by the editors.

In up to 60 days, counted from the beginning of the process, the reviews will be ready for publication.

Access the form hre to sendo your review.