Abstract:

Central Purpose of this research:
In spite of its importance to the scientific development, the job of manuscripts reviewing as an element of researchers training has been neglected under Academy, especially in the area of Social Sciences. Except isolated efforts, opportunities to consider this thematic as object of research are very limited. Therefore, we opted to drive qualitative research involving doctoral students that had an opportunity to participate in a course focused on manuscripts reviewer education at a Business Administration Post-Graduate Program from a Brazilian Public University. Thus, this work aims to understand the learning process of manuscripts reviewer education from the experience of doctoral students’ participation in submissions review system to an electronic journal.

Theoretical Framework:
The theoretical debate about the chosen theme for this study is recent and it has been explored with greater intensity from the last years of the last century. Texts written by editors and journal reviewers as Schwab (1985), Romanelli (1995) and Leblebici (1996), among others, represent the pioneer in this endeavor and discuss the learning process during the review practices, the essential roles of reviewers and how experience, among other factors, impact on the status of good reviewer (SHUKLA, 2010) as well as the inherent characteristics of the manuscript review system, arguing their pros and cons (ROMANELLI, 1996; HEMPEL, 2014).

The studies highlights the complexity of the learning process related to the review of scientific papers, considering the centrality of Dewey’s thought (2011) about the importance of experience and reflection to learning development.

Research Method:
The study was conducted from an interpretative perspective, based on Dewey (2011) studies on learning and in accordance with the construction procedures of grounded theory proposed by Charmaz (2009), and the adoption of other mechanisms that made possible the triangulation data, the validity extension and reliability of the research. We adopted participant observation, questionnaires and conducting structured interviews as strategies. Data analysis was performed using the initial line-by-line coding procedure, according to Charmaz (2009). We proceeded to categorize the data on the studied learning process, which allowed the preparation of theoretical formulation about the studied context.

Results, Conclusions and Implications for the Area:
We observed the effervescence of a set of issues which remain little discussed in academy, especially in the review context. We highlight discussions on plagiarism, self-plagiarism and cross citation, reported as extremely important for doctoral students throughout learning process. Other raised issues relate to the need of authors adaptation to different and specific regulations, which can lead well-formulated manuscripts to disapproval because of inadequacy to the journals organizational standards, as well as issues raised by the forerunners of studies on manuscripts reviewing.

Keywords:

Manuscripts, Report, Reviewing, Learning.