Submissions

Author Guidelines

Manuscripts received by PSI UNISC are submitted to the text comparison tool   Similarity Check, distributed by iThenticate. The journal condemns unethical practices and assumes that the authors ensure the originality of the document and correctly reference the use of information from other authors. Therefore, it is possible that during the evaluation process of the submitted work, the authors receive questions regarding possible non-conformities pointed out by the tool used.

Should bad practices be confirmed, the author(s) involved will receive a notice of rejection and the article will be archived.

ORCID: Due to the importance of identifying authors more precisely, the journal PSI UNISC requests that authors include the ORCID ID in their metadata when submitting manuscripts. This identifier individualizes the researcher, distinguishing one from the other and at the same time preventing problems with ambiguities in the entries and spellings of the same name.  Another important feature is that it is unrestricted and enables the exchange of metadata. Using an ORCID ID, researchers are connected with their activities, research results, publications and affiliations. The ORCID registry can be obtained free of charge at http://orcid.org.

TITLE AND NUMBER OF AUTHORS: One of the authors of the article must, obligatorily, hold a Master's or Doctorate degree. The total number of authors of an article should not exceed six (6).

GENERAL GUIDELINES 

1. The editorial process will only begin if the submission of the manuscript complies with the guidelines established in this document. Otherwise, it will be returned for adequacy.
2. The article submitted to PSI UNISC cannot have been published in any other means of publication (journal), book, etc.) and cannot be simultaneously submitted or published elsewhere.
3. All article submissions must follow the guidelines specified in item 2.1. General Elements. The list of references used in the manuscript must follow APA 6th ed. publication standards (American Psychological Association. (2010). Publication manual of the American Psychological Association (6th ed.). Washington, DC: Author).
4. Articles may be submitted in Portuguese, Spanish or English, however the Abstracts in Portuguese, Spanish and English are mandatory.
5. Documents for submission must be in .doc or .docx format.
6. The article must respect the number of pages established, as described below:

• a. Theoretical study (15-25 pages) - discussion of theoretically based issues and problems, involving critical reflection and indication of scientific advances in the state of the art associated with it. It must contain: titles, abstracts, introduction, method, results, discussion, conclusion or final considerations, and references.
• b. Research report (15-25 pages) - original research, of scientific relevance, based on state of the art and empirical data, with methodology suited to the objectives and discussion. It is important to make explicit the contribution of research to the production of knowledge in Psychology. It must contain: titles, abstracts, introduction, method, results, discussion, conclusion or final considerations, and references.
• c. Experience report (10-15 pages) - experience reports related to professional intervention, of scientific and social interest and relevance for different areas of psychological knowledge and which demonstrate contributions to professional practice in Psychology. It must contain: titles, abstracts, introduction, method, results, discussion, conclusion or final considerations, and references.
• d. Systematic reviews (15-25 pages) - must follow their own methodological design, based on a specific question, defining an adequate literature search strategy that can be replicated. Inclusion and exclusion criteria of relevant studies should be established, assessing the risk of bias of the studies included in the review and, finally, make a synthesis of the evidence found, covering their implications and limitations, in order to point to future paths of professional conduct, public policies and/or research. When preparing the manuscript, authors should pay attention to the following suggestions: 1. It is recommended that systematic reviews follow the good practice criteria presented in the literature (e.g., Cochrane, PRISMA, etc.). 2. The selection of databases to be researched must be compatible with the object of the systematic review.  However, other types of reviews are accepted, such as critical review of literature, narrative and integrative reviews. Critical, narrative and integrative reviews should promote a comprehensive view on a topic related to the PSI UNISC Knowledge Area, based on syntheses about current issues, state-of-the-art, dilemmas, and knowledge gaps associated with the topic addressed.
• e. Essay (up to 10 pages) – it is characterized by its reflective and interpretive nature, being a production of analysis that does not follow the same logic and model of traditional articles, but with the same systematization of those. It presents an original form of argumentation and is related to inventiveness and creation.

* Manuscripts from research involving human beings must comply with what is specified in item 8.

7. IDENTIFICATION: It is essential that the material does not contain any form of authorship identification, which includes references identified to previous works of the author(s) of the manuscript and their institutional links, as well as information contained in the fields of the document properties. Institutional information or methodological details that may identify the authorship must be suppressed, using, for example, the expressions “University XXX”; “at School XXX”. Authors who have their submissions accepted for publication will have the opportunity to fill in the suppressed data in the final review.
8. ETHICS COMMITTEE: Research involving human beings: it must include information regarding approval by the Ethics Committee for Research with Human Beings, according to Resolution No. 466/2012 of the National Health Council. In the “Method” section, the last paragraph must contain a clear statement of this compliance, stating the CAAE number (Certificate of Presentation for Ethical Appreciation) and/or the Report of Research Ethics Committee (CEP) number. The report with the approval of the Ethics Committee must be attached as an additional document.
9. SUBMISSION METADATA: must be filled out correctly and completely, including name, institution/affiliation, country, biography summary, of ALL AUTHORS of the manuscript.

The Title, Abstract, Keywords and References must be in accordance with the version of the manuscript that will be evaluated.

Fill out correctly and completely the Area and sub-area of knowledge, Language and funding agencies (if any).

Authors who have their submissions accepted for publication should, if necessary, update the Submission Metadata and include the ORCID ID. It is not the responsibility of the journal to adjust any information after the issue is published.

PREPARATION OF MANUSCRIPTS

1. GENERAL DOCUMENT FORMAT: A4 Paper size (21 x 29.7cm), 2.54cm top and bottom margins, 1.9cm left and right margins. Simple space; 12-point size Times New Roman font; justified text; titles and subtitles in bold, centered, with the first letter of each word capitalized (e.g.: Results, Method, References...). Pages should not be numbered.
2. MANUSCRIPT ELEMENTS:

2.1 GENERAL ELEMENTS: The elements of the article must be presented in the following order: (1) title (2) Abstracts and keywords; (3) Body of the text; (4) References.

• ORIGINAL TITLE (maximum 12 words) in Portuguese, Spanish and English (in this sequence). Centered, bold and typed in uppercase and lowercase letters.
• ABSTRACT: It comes below the titles.  Abstracts must be written in Portuguese (Resumo), Spanish (Resumen) and English (Abstract), formatted in a single paragraph, containing from 150 to 250 words each and preceded by the title (Resumo, Resumen or Abstract) in bold, and centered. The abstract should basically contain the objectives of the study, a basic description of the methods used, the main results and a conclusion. At the end, describe in one sentence your conclusion on the terms in which your results helped to respond to the objectives and indicate the contribution to knowledge about the researched topic.
• Keywords: below each abstract, list three to five keywords, in lowercase and separated by semicolons, in the corresponding language, using the controlled vocabulary DeCS - Descritores em Ciências da Saúde  (Descriptors in Health Sciences.)

• Abstracts in Spanish and English must be faithful to the original in Portuguese. However, they must not be translated literally. In other words, translations, in addition to preserving the content of the abstract, must adapt to the grammatical style of the languages.
• ABSTRACT and RESUMEN: Abstracts in Spanish and English must be faithful to the original in Portuguese. However, they must not be translated literally. In other words, translations, in addition to preserving the content of the abstract, must adapt to the grammatical style of the languages.

• BODY OF THE TEXT: for more details, click here:
•     - INTRODUCTION
•     - METHOD
•     - RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
•     - FINAL CONSIDERATIONS
• REFERENCES: for examples, click here: 

3. ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS: must be submitted as an additional document.

3.1 IDENTIFIED COVER PAGE

• a. Original title (maximum 12 words) in Portuguese, Spanish and English (in this sequence). Centered, bold and typed in uppercase and lowercase letters;
• b. Name and institutional affiliation of each author, at the time of article submission;
• c. ORCID ID - The ORCID identifier can be obtained from the website https://orcid.org/register. You must accept the standards for ORCID iD presentation and include the full URL (for example:   http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1825-0097).
• d. Mailing address (preferably institutional) with readers and the editor, including e-mail of one of the authors;
• e. Acknowledgments and additional Information, when applicable, such as, for example, research funding or scholarship.
• f. Include a note about the authors: a brief description of the authors' current activities and background.

3.2 REPORT OF THE RESEARCH ETHICS COMMITTEE (CEP)

1. Research involving human beings must include the report with the approval of the Ethics Committee as an Additional Document, according to Resolution No. 466/2012 of the National Health Council.

3.3 Peer Review Process

The body of reviewers are professionals with a doctorate degree and are specialists in the area of evaluation at PSI UNISC Journal. In addition, ad hoc reviewers are usually chosen according to their expertise in the theme of the manuscript sent to them.

PSI UNISC is characterized as an open access academic publication. The reviewing process follows the following flow:

1. Submitted articles are first analyzed by the editors to verify publishing guidelines and adequacy to the themes of interest. If the evaluation is negative, the article is archived through communication with the authors.
2. From the first analysis, they follow a double-blind review process in which the identity of both the reviewer and the author is hidden from both parties. The review system is composed of two external reviewers (ad hoc) assigned according to the theme and focus of the article, for blind evaluations.
3. PSI UNISC has a bank of registered reviewers according to their expertise in themes related to Psychology and the selection follows the editorial policy that combines invitations to researchers from Brazil and abroad.
4. The reviewers are consulted about the possibility of carrying out the review and, if they accept, they fill out their own form in which they can indicate their recommendation for the work, choosing one of four options: 1) not to publish; 2) publish; 3) publish only with mandatory corrections; 4) submit to another journal. In all cases the author is informed. Upon request for changes, the manuscript and report are forwarded to the author(s) for changes (DEADLINE 10 days).
5. In the event of conflicting opinions, the articles will be sent to a third reviewer.
6. The corrected version undergoes a new evaluation by the editorial board, where further adjustments may be required (DEADLINE 7 days). Should the article not require any changes by the reviewers, acceptance is communicated and sent for text editing.
7. If the third reviewer suggests rejection or submission to another journal, the authors of the article are notified and the manuscript is archived.

3.4 ITEMS EVALUATED BY THE REVIEWERS:   

1. Is the work relevant to the field of study?

*Yes *No *Partially

If no or partially, please explain:
2. Is the work adequate to the scope of the journal?
*Yes *No
3. Is the title appropriate?
*Yes *No *Partially

If no or partially, please explain:
4. Abstract: Does it describe the objective, the theoretical framework, the methods used and the main results or conclusions?
*Yes *No *Partially

If no or partially, please justify your opinion
5. Objectives: Are they clearly explained and effectively developed in the text?
*Yes *No *Partially

If no or partially, please explain:
6. Are the theoretical and conceptual articulations presented in a clear and coherent way?
*Yes *No *Partially
If no or partially, please explain how this could be done:
7. Theoretical review: is it adequate and relevant to the study?
*Yes *No *Partially

If no or partially, please mention the omissions in your comments:
8. Theoretical review: is it consistent and up-to-date (last 5 years)?
*Yes *No *Partially
If no or partially, please suggest amendments in your comments:
09. Methodology: is the method used by the author consistent with the research proposal (objectives, justification)?
*Yes *No *Partially *Not applicable
If no or partially, please explain:
10. Methodology: Does the author present the procedures used in data collection?
*Yes *No *Partially *Not applicable
11. Methodology: Does the author present the Ethical procedures of the research?
*Yes *No *Partially *Not applicable
12. Methodology: Are data analyzed and interpreted consistently?
*Yes *No *Partially *Not applicable

If no or partially, please explain:
13. Results and Discussion: Do the results presented respond to the objectives proposed in the article?
*Yes *No *Partially *Not applicable
If no or partially, please explain:
14. Results and Discussion: is there an articulation between the arguments used in the discussion of the data and the proposed objectives?
15. Results and Discussion: is the data analysis consistent and relevant to the study area?
*Yes *No *Partially *Not applicable
If no or partially, please explain:
16. Conclusions: are they adequate with the proposed objectives and the data presented?
*Yes *No *Partially *Not applicable

If no or partially, please explain:
17. Article: Does the text as a whole comply with the formal requirements of scientific language?
*Yes *No *Partially
If no or partially, please suggest reformulations:
18. Article: Is the text as a whole clear, consistent and unambiguous?
*Yes *No *Partially

If no or partially, please suggest reformulations:

If you think that the article should not be published as it is, please point out the changes that could be made to make it publishable. Please be advised that it is mandatory to include the evaluation comments or download an expanded version of the document with the comments before defining your evaluation:

My recommendation for the work is:

Do not publish

Publish

Publish only with mandatory corrections

Submit to another journal

FINANCING

If the submitted manuscript is the result of research funded by public or private entities, this information must be provided in the final version of the publication, but not in the submission manuscript.

AUTHORSHIP

People designated as authors must have participated in the development of the articles so that they can publicly assume responsibility for their content. Qualifying as an author presupposes: conception and design or analysis and interpretation of data; writing the article or its critical review; and approval of the version to be published. 

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

Conflicts of interest may arise when authors, reviewers or editors have interests that, whether apparent or not, may influence the preparation or evaluation of manuscripts. When authors submit a manuscript, they are responsible for acknowledging and disclosing financial or other conflicts that may have influenced their work. The rapporteur must disclose to the editors any conflicts of interest that could bias his/her opinion of the manuscript, and, when applicable, must declare that he/she is not qualified to review it. If authors are unsure of what may constitute a potential conflict of interest, they should contact the PSI UNISC editorial office. Preferably, authors are expected not to have any conflict of interest with the topic addressed in the article, nor with the items cited.

Currently, PSI UNISC Journal is indexed in the following bases:

Updated guidelines Nov 22^nd, 2021