The challenges of publishing with quality and high impact: an analysis of the Journal of Rural Economics and Sociology (RESR)Over the past few years, the Journal of Rural Economics and Sociology (RESR) of the Brazilian Society of Rural Economics, Administration, and Sociology (SOBER) has experienced major and significant changes. According to Coronel et al. (2024), these changes are aimed at improving the editorial flow and contributing to a more efficient and effective editorial policy.
In this sense, since October 2024, RESR has changed its editorial policy, focusing on better editorial practices (Scientific Electronic Library Online, 2024). As Silveira & Silva (2020) and Pesquisa FAPESP (Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo, 2022) point out, such practices have been adopted by the main international journals, aiming to be indexed in the Web of Science (WOS).
From this perspective, associate editors, editorial board members, and peer reviewers have become increasingly stricter in their pursuit of journal quality. In this context, the following question arises: what makes a quality article that complies with the RESR guidelines?
Firstly, the title should be clear, direct, and objective, summarizing the content of the article and highlighting the relevant and innovative points of the research (Pereira, 2014). Thus, the use of abbreviations, except those in general use, formulas, excessive adjectives or sensationalism, words of obscure meaning, or superfluous terms is not suitable (Aquino, 2010; Cauchick-Miguel et al., 2017).
The abstract should outline the objectives, methodology, results, and key conclusions. It should not contain excess information, contradictions regarding the text, references in the body of the text, or a literature review. The keywords should identify the content of the work, provide indexing in databases, and allow the researcher to select material for further studies (Gustavii, 2017; Pereira, 2021; Brasileiro, 2021).
The introduction is among the most important parts of the article, as it introduces the subject of the research and the purpose of the investigation. It is up to the author to prepare the reader to understand the “reasons for the research” and the justification for carrying it out. This section should be organized to awaken interest and stimulate reading. It does not need to be striking, but it does need to inform about the subsequent text and highlight what is new compared to other published work. Redundancies, bibliographical reviews, unnecessary precision, direct quotations, graphs, charts, and tables should be avoided in the introduction (Volpato, 2010, 2015, 2016; Schuster et al., 2014).
In the theoretical framework or literature review section, which are distinct items, the author should explain which theories underpin the research. If the authors choose a literature review, they should highlight the works at the cutting edge of knowledge. At this stage, it is key to use databases such as WOS, Scopus, and SciELO. This section is designed to refute or corroborate the results of the research (Volpato, 2007, 2010, 2017a, 2017b; Estrela, 2018).
In the methods section, the author should describe how the study was conducted, including the type of design, the research setting (place and time), the sample used, the data collection methods, the statistical methods used, as well as the null and alternative hypotheses (Appolinário, 2011; Coronel et al., 2013; Marconi & Lakatos, 2018; Gil, 2019; Punch, 2021; Santos & Dias, 2023).
The results analysis and discussion section should address the research question and its answer, linking the results to the objectives of the study, theories, and hypotheses. It is also in this section that the findings are compared to the existing literature. According to the editor-in-chief's comments, many disapproved articles show the following issues: the authors simply analyze the results without explaining what they mean; they do not incorporate required elements into a discussion (such as limitations or suggestions for future research); and they present a section that is unclear or unconnected to the theory (Volpato, 2016; Gomes Neto et al., 2023).
In the conclusions, the objectives of the study should be revisited, confirming or not the hypotheses presented. The main results should be highlighted, as well as the limitations of the research and suggestions for future studies. Under no circumstances should graphs, tables, figures, or direct quotations be added to the conclusions. Authors should only be mentioned to corroborate a theory, a relevant result in the literature, or a hypothesis (Ferreira, 2015; Volpato, 2016).
Still in this context, authors must maintain an ethical stance, making it clear which materials were used and providing the appropriate references, under penalty of incurring plagiarism and unethical practice, contrary to good academic research practices (Paranaguá & Branco, 2009; Diniz & Terra, 2014; Krokoscz, 2015).
The text should be clearly written and enjoyable to read. Various authors and materials can help in this regard, such as Pereira (2014), Becker (2015), Pinker (2016) and Medeiros (2019).
Finally, there is no definitive rule for publishing articles in high Qualis or high-impact factor journals. However, the topics discussed above are key points that contribute to improving the quality of an article.
Thus, we hope that these guidelines will encourage researchers to leave their comfort zones and produce studies that not only broaden their curricula, but also contribute to the building of knowledge and the dissemination of science.
-
How to cite: Coronel, D. A. (2024). The challenges of publishing with quality and high impact: an analysis of the Journal of Rural Economics and Sociology (RESR). Revista de Economia e Sociologia Rural, 62(1), e291519. https://doi.org/10.1590/1806-9479.2025.291519en
-
Financial support:
CNPq.
-
Ethics approval:
It was not necessary to submit to an ethics committee, as the study does not involve human subjects actively or passively.
-
Data availability:
21-11-2024
-
JEL Classification: Q10: Q19
References
- Appolinário, F. (2011). Dicionário de metodologia científica: um guia para a produção do conhecimento científico São Paulo: Atlas.
- Aquino, I. S. (2010). Como escrever artigos científicos: sem “arrodeio” e sem medo da ABNT. São Paulo: Saraiva.
- Becker, H. S. (2015). Truques da escrita: para começar e terminar teses, livros e artigos. Rio de Janeiro: Zahar.
- Brasileiro, A. M. M. (2021). Como produzir textos acadêmicos e científicos. São Paulo: Contexto.
- Cauchick-Miguel, P. A., Campos, L. M. S., Jabbour, A. B. L. S., Jabbour, C. J. C. (2017). Elaboração de artigos científicos: estrutura, métodos e técnicas. Rio de Janeiro: Elsevier.
- Coronel, D. A., Amorim, A. L., Bender Filho, R., & Sousa, E. P. (2013). Métodos qualitativos e quantitativos em pesquisa: uma abordagem introdutória. In R. P. Lana, G. Guimarães & G. S. Lima (Eds.), Multifuncionalidades sustentáveis no campo: agricultura, pecuária e florestas. Viçosa: Arka Editora.
-
Coronel, D. A., Bender Filho, R., & Perondi, M. A. (2024). Editores associados da Revista de Economia e Sociologia Rural: eficiência e eficácia no processo editorial. In ABEC Meeting 2024. Recuperado em 20 de novembro de 2024, de https://meeting24.abecbrasil.org.br/
» https://meeting24.abecbrasil.org.br/ - Diniz, D., & Terra, A. (2014). Plágio: palavras escondidas. Rio de Janeiro: Ed. Fiocruz.
- Estrela, C. (Ed.). (2018). Metodologia científica: ciência, ensino, pesquisa. São Paulo: Artes Médicas.
- Ferreira, M. P. (2015). Pesquisa em administração e ciências sociais aplicadas: um guia para publicação de artigos acadêmicos. Rio de Janeiro: LTC.
-
Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo – FAPESP. (2022). Boas práticas. Recuperado em 14 de dezembro de 2022, de https://revistapesquisa.fapesp.br/category/impressa/boas-praticas
» https://revistapesquisa.fapesp.br/category/impressa/boas-praticas - Gil, A. C. (2019). Métodos e técnicas de pesquisa social (7ª ed.). São Paulo: Atlas.
- Gomes Neto, J. M. W., Barbosa, L. F. A., & Paula Filho, A. M. A. (2023). O que nos dizem os dados: uma introdução à pesquisa jurídica quantitativa. São Paulo: Editora Vozes.
- Gustavii, B. (2017). Como escrever e ilustrar um artigo científico. São Paulo: Parábola Editorial.
- Krokoscz, M. (2015) Outras palavras sobre autoria e plágio. São Paulo: Atlas.
- Marconi, M. A., & Lakatos, E. M. (2018). Técnicas de pesquisa (8ª ed.). São Paulo: Atlas.
- Medeiros, J. B. (2019). Redação científica: prática de fichamentos, resumos, resenha. São Paulo: Atlas.
- Paranaguá, P., & Branco, S. (2009). Direitos autorais. Rio de Janeiro: Ed. FGV.
- Pereira, A. F. (2021). Escrita científica descomplicada: como produzir artigos de forma criativa, fluida e produtiva. São Paulo: Labrador.
- Pereira, M. G. (2014) Artigos científicos: como redigir, publicar e avaliar. Rio de Janeiro: Guanabara Koogan.
- Pinker, S. (2016). Guia de escrita: como conceber um texto com clareza, precisão e elegância. São Paulo: Contexto.
- Punch, K. (2021). Introdução à pesquisa social: abordagens quantitativas e qualitativas. Petrópolis: Editora Vozes.
- Santos, A. C. M., & Dias, S. M. V. (2023). Leitura e produção de textos acadêmicos. Rio de Janeiro: Freitas Bastos.
- Schuster, E., Levkowitz, H., & Oliveira Junior, O. N. (Eds.). (2014). Writing scientific papers in English successfully: your complete roadmap. São Carlos: Compacta Gráfica e Editora.
-
Scientific Electronic Library Online – SciELO. (2024). Revista de Economia e Sociologia Rural: sobre o periódico. Recuperado em 20 de novembro de 2024, de https://www.scielo.br/journal/resr/about/#instructions
» https://www.scielo.br/journal/resr/about/#instructions - Silveira, L., & Silva, F. C. C. (2020). Gestão editorial de periódicos científicos: tendências e boas. Florianópolis: UFSC, BU Publicações, Edições do Bosque.
- Volpato, G. L. (2007). Bases teóricas para a redação científica: por que seu artigo foi negado? São Paulo: Cultura Acadêmica.
- Volpato, G. L. (2010). Pérolas da redação científica. São Paulo: Cultura Acadêmica.
- Volpato, G.L. (2015). Guia prático para redação científica. Botucatu: Best Writing.
- Volpato, G.L. (2016). Dicas para a redação científica (4ª ed.). Botucatu: Best Writing.
- Volpato, G.L. (2017a). Ciência além da visibilidade: ciência, formação de cientistas e boas práticas. Botucatu: Best Writing.
- Volpato, G.L. (2017b). Método lógico para a redação científica (2ª ed.). Botucatu: Best Writing.
Edited by
-
Associate Editor: Reisoli Bender Filho
21-11-2024
