BAR is a scholarly journal on business and public administration published quarterly since 2004 by the Brazilian Academy of Management (ANPAD). It is a fully open-access online journal that is a member and abides by the principles of COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) and DORA (San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment). BAR is available in most reputed indexing services, including Scopus and Scielo.
1.1 Article Processing Charges (APC)
BAR adopts the policy of not imposing charges for fees at any stage of the editorial process, from submission to publication, with the cost of the editorial process being the responsibility of the journal, as well as maintenance of distribution and unrestricted access to documents published by BAR. That is, it does not charge authors, readers, or institutions in any way.
BAR’s mission is to advance scholarly knowledge on management and organizational theories and their implications for business and public administration by means of the global dissemination of conceptual and empirical studies developed in Brazil and other countries.
BAR publishes documents within the interests of business and public administration, management science, and organization studies. Diverse theoretical and methodological perspectives are welcome as long as they contribute to advancing the frontiers of a specific theoretical tradition and are also insightful to practice. Prospective authors should note that studies with blurred boundaries between what is inherent to organization studies and what may be framed within the interests of, for instance, anthropology and sociology will be rejected. Symptomatically, a large body of research has been misguiding organization scholars. The same policy applies to studies that are not fully characterized within another scholarly field but whose main interests concern isolated issues, such as culture, gender, race, performance, impact, and the like. BAR’s editorial scope for research articles does not include teaching cases, theoretical essays, opinion papers, purely applied practitioner-oriented technical material, and replication studies. As for the latter, replication is here conceived in broad terms, including the testing of theories (confirmation/refutation of previous findings), contextualization studies (application of scales to a different context), and perspective studies (collection of data from a different demographic group). Systematic literature reviews will be considered only if they address issues of contemporary interest both for theory development and application in organizations. Before submitting your systematic literature review, BAR recommends authors read two papers on how to develop compelling literature reviews: 1 and 2.
4. Target audience
BAR’s target audience is the Brazilian and the global scholarly communities in all interests of business and public administration.
Documents of interest for a BAR issue include editorial prefaces (section "Editorial"), interviews with renowned scholars (section "Interview"), original studies (section "Research articles"), and outstanding opinion articles that challenge current paradigms or describe unique experiences on the application of theories (section "Thinking Outside the Box"). All submitted documents must be original and not be under consideration for publication in any other venue. Previous publication as a preprint or in conference proceedings would not violate the originality requirements, but each case should be discussed with the editorial office and informed in the cover letter upon submission.
Submissions can be made in English or Portuguese. However, if the manuscript in Portuguese is accepted for publication, the authors must send the full version of the manuscript in the English language (with proper vernacular quality and content) to BAR. The manuscripts will be published only in English, given the journal's international audience.
6. Peer Review Process
All submissions are subject to a preliminary screening by the editorial office regarding formatting. Submissions for the manuscript type "Interview" will go through an initial evaluation by the Editor-in-chief. Depending upon the theme, the Editor-in-chief will indicate an Associate Editor to perform the interview analysis and recommend whether or not to publish the interview. The journal reserves the right to propose modifications that contribute to greater text clarity. The review process of manuscript types "Research articles" and "Thinking Outside the Box" consists of two stages. In the first stage (desk-review), the editor-in-chief and an associate editor (chosen by the editor-in-chief based on the article’s main topic and methods) verify the relevance of the submitted article, its alignment with the journal’s editorial scope, and other aspects including originality and contribution to the area of submission. Only articles the editors consider relevant to the academic community and, in particular, to the journal’s audience, proceed to further stages.
Articles that pass the first stage of analysis (desk review) are sent to the second stage: double-blind peer review. In the double-blind peer review process, the Associate Editor invites at least two reviewers with experience related to the theme of the article. Reviewers will provide reports on the article, typically within 12 weeks. If reviewers do not provide consistent responses, the Associate Editor will either send the article to a third reviewer or make a decision recommendation based on the reviewers' reports. The Editor-in-chief will notify the authors of their decision to accept or reject the article. Acceptance of articles generally depends on further rounds of revisions, that is, making changes in accordance with the reviewer's and editor’s comments.
After acceptance, the article will be submitted to grammar review, APA Style formatting, typesetting, and then published in the current volume and issue.
7. Copyright and Licensing
This journal remains the copyright holder of published articles. The journal grants third parties the right to use, reproduce, and share the article according to the Creative Commons license agreement (CC-BY 4.0), as stated in the article’s PDF document.
BAR demands that authors present, at the moment of submission, the necessary permissions to use any material protected by copyright – for example, illustrations, artwork, and photographs, including any materials from online sources. In order to reproduce copyrighted content, the authors must obtain written permission from the rights owners and send the permissions to BAR’s Editorial Office. Permission is not necessary for significantly adapted content (but full citation to the source remains mandatory).
In order for the publication of documents, the authors must sign a Transfer of Copyright Form, which will be sent to the authors by e-mail for electronic signature.
8. Open Access
BAR is a fully open-access journal. This journal provides immediate open access to its content on the principle that making research freely available to the public supports a greater global exchange of knowledge. There is no embargo on the journal’s publications. Submission and acceptance dates, along with publication dates, are made available in PDF format for each paper.
Authors are encouraged to publish their data in recommended repositories. For a list of generic and subject-specific repositories that meet our peer review criteria, see here.
9. Conflict of Interest
Submissions for BAR are assigned to editors in an effort to minimize potential conflicts of interest. The following relationships between editors and authors are considered conflicts and are avoided:
> Current colleagues, OR
> Recent colleagues, OR
> Recent co-authors, OR
> Doctoral students for which the editor served as committee chair.
After papers are assigned, associate editors are required to inform the editor-in-chief of any conflicts not included in the list above. In the event that none of the editors satisfy all of the conflict screens, associate editors who are least conflicted will be assigned to the manuscript. BAR's submissions are also assigned to reviewers to minimize conflicts of interest. After papers are assigned, reviewers are asked to inform the editor of any conflicts that may exist.
ANPAD's Handbook of Best Practices in Scientific Publication imposes additional conditions, which BAR assigns consent: Papers authored by the Editor and Associate Editors should not be published, even if this authorship is shared with other authors, and not even by leaders of the maintainers of the journal, except in special cases. When this is the case, this specificity should be cited and justified in the Editorial of the issue, and it is also necessary to explicitly indicate a special editor for that specific article, evidently maintaining the anonymity of the authors and evaluators.
10. Authorship and Contributorship
1. Substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work; or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data for the work; AND
2. Drafting the work or revising it critically for important intellectual content; AND
3. Final approval of the version to be published; AND
4. Agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.
In addition to being accountable for the parts of the work he or she has done, an author should be able to identify which co-authors are responsible for specific other parts of the work. In addition, authors should have confidence in the integrity of the contributions of their co-authors. We include only one corresponding author per article. Any further contribution details (e.g., equal contribution) will be included in the contributors section at the end of the article.
BAR requires that all those designated as authors should meet all four ICMJE criteria for authorship, and all who meet the four criteria should be identified as authors. We recognize only natural persons as authors. These authorship criteria are intended to reserve the status of authorship for those who deserve credit and can take responsibility for the work. The criteria are not intended for use as a means to disqualify colleagues from authorship who otherwise meet authorship criteria by denying them the opportunity to meet criterions #2 or #3 above. Therefore, all individuals who meet the first criterion should have the opportunity to participate in the review, drafting, and final approval of the manuscript.
The individuals who conduct the work are responsible for identifying who meets these criteria and ideally should do so when planning the work, making modifications as appropriate as the work progresses. The corresponding author takes primary responsibility for communication with the journal during the manuscript submission, peer review, and publication process, and typically ensures that all the journal’s administrative requirements, such as providing details of authorship, ethics committee approval, clinical trial registration documentation, and gathering conflict of interest forms and statements, are properly completed, although these duties may be delegated to one or more co-authors. At BAR we want authors to assure us that all authors included in a paper fulfill the criteria of authorship. In addition, we want assurance that there is no one else who fulfills the criteria but has not been included as an author. When we encounter disagreements among authors we follow guidance from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), which BAR is a member of, and subscribes to the principles of — see here and here.
ANPAD's Handbook of Best Practices in Scientific Publication adds to BAR's policy of authorship criteria that:
• Editorial process should be shared between researchers and teachers belonging to various institutions, in order to avoid the owner-journal, that is, produced mainly by people linked to a specific institution;
• Each year, the fraction of articles originating from a particular institution (that is, with at least one author, teacher, or student linked to it) must not exceed 15% of the total articles published;
• In the same year, more than one author's paper should not be published, regardless of the author's position in the text.
When submitting articles for the Brazilian Administration Review, authors must inform if there was funding for the research. In the case of a research result with funding, quote the funding agency and the process number only in the ScholarOne system. In the event the article is approved for publication, this information will be included by the editorial team in the final version for publication (PDF).
12. Open Science practices
In line with Open Science practices, in 2020 BAR started to encourage reviewers to join the Open Peer Review, according to which the journal publishes, on the title page of each article, information about the editors and reviewers who contributed to the peer-review process of that article. BAR also encourages and invites reviewers and authors to allow disclosure of the peer-review reports containing the reviewers’ comments and authors’ responses, which are shared alongside the published article.
Regarding Open Data, as of October 2020, BAR requires that submitted manuscripts cite and reference all data, program codes, and other materials that were used in and resulted from the studies. The editors might invite authors to share their original database, if unpublished, by depositing the database and additional files in open repositories such as Mendeley Data and Zenodo. If the authors accept the invitation, they will receive specific instructions for the deposit.
Upon submission, authors must fill and send the Open Science Compliance Form alongside the cover letter, stating their positioning regarding preprints, research data, and other materials, as well as their stance on open peer review. More instructions can be found in BAR’s submission manual available in the Guide to authors menu.
13. Anti-plagiarism and data falsification
BAR uses iThenticate as the plagiarism detection tool.
Plagiarism is defined as the unacknowledged use of the work of others as if this were your own original work.
13.1 Examples of plagiarism:
- Copying and pasting from the Internet and posting somewhere else without proper citation.
- Put your name on another person’s essay or project.
- Copying exact wording from another person’s text.
- Using another person’s photo, diagram, tables, sounds, or ideas without proper citation.
- Presenting research in your own words without providing references
- Purchasing another person’s text and using it as your own.
- Present ideas in the same format and order as your research source.
By submitting a paper for publication to this journal, the author(s) certify that:
- I/We are fully aware that plagiarism is wrong.
- I/We know that plagiarism is the use of another person’s idea or published work and pretending that it is one’s own.
- I/ We declare that each contribution to your project from the work(s) of other peoples' published works or unpublished sources has been acknowledged and sources of information have been referenced.
- I/We certify that I/we are solely responsible for any incomplete reference that may remain in my/our work.
13.2 Anti-plagiarism declaration
I have read and understood the BAR policy on plagiarism. I hereby declare that this piece of a manuscript is the result of my own independent scholarly work and that in all cases material from the work of others (in books, articles, essays, dissertations, and on the internet) is acknowledged, and quotations and paraphrases are clearly indicated. No material other than that listed has been used. This written work has not previously or not yet been published.
13.3 Tips for Avoiding Plagiarism:
- Learn the citation expectations for each course.
- When you take notes for a paper, be sure to cite sources so you don’t get mixed up later.
- When you research online, be sure to find the original source of the information, since it is possible that websites plagiarize.
- If you are really worried, ask your prof if you can submit a rough draft so she /he can check your citations.
- When in doubt, authors must cite. It is better to have too many citations than few.
To help address and prevent plagiarism, BAR incorporates into its editorial workflows iThenticate. The main features of iThenticate are: a) prevents plagiarism by detecting textual similarities which could indicate misconduct; and b) compares full-text manuscripts against a database with millions of articles, thousands of journals, books from hundreds of publishers, and billion web pages. The main function of iThenticate is to identify the textual overlap of a manuscript against a database of published works and internet sources.
13.4 Policies for Data Falsification and Fabrication
The U.S. Office of Research Integrity defines research falsification as “manipulating research materials, equipment, or processes, or changing or omitting data or results such that the research is not accurately represented in the research record.” Data fabrication, on the other hand, refers to "making up" entire sets of data or results and recording or reporting them as genuine findings. It is worth noting that inaccuracies in data and reported findings are more commonly the result of honest mistakes on the part of the authors – mistakes do happen! With this in mind, it is important to investigate any allegations made against authors to ascertain whether or not this is the result of research misconduct, or whether this is simply a genuine oversight.
For these reasons, BAR - Brazilian Administration Review assumes that research misconduct means fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism in proposing, performing, or reviewing research, or in reporting research results.
Fabrication is making up data or results and recording or reporting them. Falsification is manipulating research materials, equipment, or processes, or changing or omitting data or results such that the research is not accurately represented in the research record. Plagiarism is the appropriation of another person's ideas, processes, results, or words without giving appropriate credit. Research misconduct does not include honest errors or differences of opinion.
In case of BAR receives any claim of data fabrication or falsification of work under evaluation, the peer review process is put on hold whilst the issue is investigated. If the allegation appears to be founded, the author should be contacted and the original raw data may be requested. If further investigation is required, the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) recommends that any investigations should be undertaken by the author’s institution.
Retractions are considered by BAR’s editors in cases of evidence of unreliable data or findings, plagiarism, duplicate publication, and unethical research. We may consider an expression of concern notice if an article is under investigation. All retraction notices explain why the article was retracted. When the paper is included in an issue we replace the version of the article that will be posted containing just the metadata, with a retraction note replacing the original text. The *.pdf document will be replaced with a version watermarked with “Retracted Version”. Yet, the original text will remain accessible. In rare cases, we may have to remove the original content for legal reasons. In such cases, we will leave the metadata (title and authors) and replace the text with a note saying the article has been removed for legal reasons. A retraction notice will also be published online. Retraction notices will always be indexed and linked to the original records in Scielo.
In case of identification of the malpractices above mentioned, all recommendations of the COPE guidelines will be followed.
14. Editorial boards
The following individuals cannot act as senior editors, associate editors, or reviewers in BAR's editorial processes:
- Current members of ANPAD's presidential board;
- Current members of the grant committees of the Brazilian Research Council (CNPq)
BAR’s editorial boards are as follows:
- Editorial Policy Committee (EPC)
- Editor-in-Chief (EIC)
- Senior Editors (SE)
- Associate Editors (AE)
- Editorial Assistant (EA)
- Editorial Review Board (ERB)
14.1 Editorial Policy Committee (EPC)
The EPC, also known as the advisory board, consists of:
- ANPAD’s Director for Communication and Publications, who presides over the committee
- ANPAD’s President
- BAR’s EIC
- Scholars recognized for their achievements in the fields of business and public administration
The EPC is responsible for:
- Coordinating the nomination process for the EIC position.
- Assuring that editors fulfill their duties, otherwise they may be replaced.
- Developing BAR’s editorial policies, such as the mission, scope, target audience, visual identity, and periodicity.
- Submitting proposals for changes in BAR’s regulations to EPC’s president.
14.2 Editor-in-Chief (EIC)
Overall, the EIC coordinates the editorial process and assumes the ultimate responsibility for the journal’s quality, as the EIC has the final word on the accepted and rejected documents and the organization of each issue. The EIC also leads a series of other actions, such as the organization of special issues, the design of features for the journal’s website, and campaigns geared towards promoting the journal. The nomination for the person to occupy the EIC position should consider many factors, including: leadership and recognition in the scholarly community as an author, reviewer, and member of editorial boards, commitment to editorial deadlines, ability to promote the work of other researchers and to guide them through the editorial process, development of work plans for BAR, effectiveness in meeting multiple requests from institutions to which BAR is connected, participation in outstanding academic networks, and evidence of professional and interpersonal ethics.
The EIC is particularly responsible for:
- Nomination of individuals to serve as EPC members, SE, AE, EM, and members of the ERB board (reviewers). The EPC has the right to veto any nomination.
- Coordination of BAR’s staff.
- Desk review of documents submitted to BAR.
- Assignment and supervision of reviewers, in close coordination with an SE or AE.
- The final decision on submitted documents.
- Continuous improvement of BAR and its editorial processes.
- Assurance of editorial timeliness.
- Assurance that documents meet academic rigor and relevance for practice.
- Author and reviewer advising as to what is expected from them.
- Mediation of the relationship between SEs, AEs, reviewers, and authors.
- Designation of invited editors (external to BAR’s boards) to review documents authored and submitted to BAR by members of ANPAD’s boards or BAR’s boards.
14.3 Senior Editors (SE)
The SEs are nominated by the EIC, subject to EPC’s right to veto. The SE board represents all key areas of expertise within BAR’s interest in business and public administration. Those areas of expertise are closely related to ANPAD’s academic divisions. SEs can be affiliated with any institution in the world, but they are typically chosen among the most reputed scholars affiliated with ANPAD. Their role is to manage the review process of documents submitted to their areas of expertise, subject to the documents having passed the EIC desk review and their own SE desk review. They are responsible for working with AEs and reviewers in the editorial process and writing a review report to the EIC. They also advise the EIC on BAR interests, particularly within their areas of expertise, such as when planning for special issues and new nominations for the AE board.
14.4 Associate Editors (AE)
The AEs are nominated by the EIC or by an SE, subject to EPC’s right to veto. They are selected taking into account geographic representativeness, equity, diversity, and knowledge of the topic. Each AE evaluates up to 4 or 5 submissions a year. Due to this limitation, and to qualify and speed up the evaluation process, multiple AEs might be responsible for the same area of expertise.
The primary incumbency of an AE is to analyze submitted documents based on his or her expertise on the dominant topic of the document. If the document has the merits to undergo a full review process, the AE will assign two or three reviewers to work on it. The AE will also manage the deadlines and write a review report to the SE or directly to the EIC. AEs may serve in a permanent or ad-hoc fashion. Permanent AEs are expected to manage more review processes than ad-hoc AEs. Ad-hoc AEs may be promoted to the permanent AE board depending on the quality of their work for BAR. As AEs gain seniority in BAR, they become eligible for the SE board.
14.5 Editorial Assistants (EA)
The EAs are responsible for managing the journal’s staff and the workflow of the editorial process, including:
- Maintaining the database of editorial members.
- Maintaining the database of performance evaluations of the editorial boards, especially regarding the quality of reviews and the commitment to deadlines.
- Assisting the EIC in identifying quality reviewers to work on submitted documents.
- Managing the proofreading process and assuring compliance with publication standards.
- Managing the deadlines.
- Managing the operational and administrative processes related to publishing the journal’s issues.
- Interacting with other institutions.
- Looking for opportunities for the journal.
The EAs are ANPAD employees, members of the Editorial Office, assigned by the Publisher.
14.6 Editorial Review Board (ERB)
BAR’s ERB consists of renowned scholars from the academic community spanning the broadest scope possible of scholarly knowledge in business and public administration. They also represent a diversity of institutions and regions in the world. ERB members are invited in an ad-hoc fashion by the EIC, an SE, or an AE to review documents submitted to BAR within their areas of expertise.
15. Criteria for the Annual Outstanding Reviewer Award for BAR
The Outstanding Reviewer Award for BAR held annually during the EnANPAD (ANPAD Annual Meeting) uses the following evaluation criteria of the reviewers active 12 months before the event, commonly held in October. The evaluators who contributed between September of the previous year and the end of September of the current year of the award are eligible for the award.
- Have issued at least two evaluative reports in the period;
- Have an average evaluation time equal to or less than 30 days;
- Not having declined an invitation to evaluate during the period.
- The average evaluation time (the period between the invitation and the issuance of the review report).
- The number of review reports issued in the period.
- The opinion of the Associate Editor on the report issued.
- Quality of the review report regarding 1) the cordiality in the communication with the authors; 2) assertiveness in presenting the article's strengths and weaknesses; 3) objective suggestions on overcoming the identified weaknesses and; 4) suggestions for extra literature, but not unnecessary citations.
Note: BAR may make other honorable mentions or awards to evaluators at different times of the year following the requirements and criteria mentioned.
16. Criteria for preparing special issues
BAR's special issues aim to meet the specific demands of different orders but are always in line with the general scope of the journal. Mainly, they aim to develop specific themes that represent the state of the art in terms of research fields of global interest.
BAR does not organize special issues as per the request of individuals, institutions, or conferences. The choice of a particular topic is chosen by a collegiate body composed of the editor-in-chief and Editorial Board of BAR, as well as the board of ANPAD.
Criteria for the selection of guest editors: Guest editors must have international recognition of the topic selected to compose the special issue. Priority will be given to the formation of partnerships between national and international researchers, as a way of leveraging relationships and promoting the internationalization of BAR.
Call for papers for each special issue: all information relevant to each special issue, such as its theme, guest editors, deadlines, subjects of interest, and submission instructions can be found in each call for papers published by the journal.
Evaluation of submissions for special issues: Articles suitable for evaluation will follow the journal's traditional peer review process for any type of submission. The papers will be screened initially by Guest Editors and the Editor-in-Chief. The special issue guest editors will select associate editors and reviewers from BAR’s editorial board to work in the review process. Article review consists of two stages. In the first stage, the editor-in-chief, the guest editors, and an associate editor verify the relevance of the submitted article, its alignment with the journal’s editorial scope, and other aspects including originality and contribution to the area of submission. Only articles the editors consider relevant to the academic community and, in particular, to the journal’s audience, proceed to further stages. Articles that pass the first stage of analysis are sent to double-blind, peer review by at least two reviewers assigned by the associate editor. Any acceptance is subject to a satisfactory response to the comments of reviewers and editors during the review process.
Publication of special issues: Special issues are published in a volume and issue of the journal determined by the editor-in-chief, in agreement with the guest editors of the special issue, following the estimated publication date informed in the call for papers.
17. Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statements
The main editorial policies of BAR regarding obedience and promotion of ethics in scientific communication are described below to promote/discuss:
(a) Integrity and transparency in the manuscript evaluation process: please see the above policies "6. Peer Review Process" and "13. Anti-plagiarism and data falsification".
(b) Integrity and transparency in the reproducibility of the research: please see the above policies "9. Open Science practices".
(c) Concepts and actions that promote integrity in the publication process; (d) The occurrence of manipulation or invention of data; (e) The unreferenced copy of data or the text of another author; (f) Duplication of publication of the same text or research; (g) Referrals in cases of suspicion or evidence of misconduct: please see the above policies "13. Anti-plagiarism and data falsification".
(h) Conflicts of interest or authorship: please see the above policies "9. Conflict of Interest" and "10. Authorship and Contributorship".