About the Journal

Focus and Scope

Movimento is an open access journal published by the School of Physical Education, Physiotherapy and Dance of the Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil. It aims to disseminate Brazilian and international scientific production on topics related to Physical Education, with regard to their pedagogical, historical, political, and cultural aspects. Therefore, the journal receives, reviews, and publishes manuscripts debating the phenomena and topics investigated, having the Human and Social Sciences as their theoretical, methodological, analytical, and interpretative foundations. The journal accepts original manuscripts in Portuguese, Spanish, English, or French.

Peer Review Process

Works with quality and relevance consistent with that of Movimento, considering the review process described below, will be selected for publication. The process for reviewing manuscripts submitted to Movimento comprises three stages:

Stage 1 – Qualification

When a manuscript is submitted, the Editorial Board conducts the first review procedure, which involves verifying:

- If the author and co-authors do not have more than two manuscripts under review. If this limit is exceeded, new submissions will be dismissed without further examination.

- If the manuscript does not address instrument validation or is based on an interview format, which will not be accepted by Movimento.

- Whether the proposal matches the scope of the journal, detailed on the ‘about/focus and scope.’ The Editorial Board reserves the right to decide whether or not a manuscript fits the scope of the journal.

- Whether mandatory structure and formatting requirements have been met, according to directions available in Section 4 of these guidelines and the TEMPLATE.

- The absence of elements identifying the authors, either in the text or in file properties, according to guidelines in a tutorial that can be accessed here.

- Whether AUTHOR’S STATEMENTS AND DETAILS was uploaded as a supplementary document whose template can be downloaded here. The statement must be signed by all authors.

- Whether proof of payment for the submission fee was uploaded as a supplementary document (more information is available in Item 6 below, “Conditions for submission”).

- Whether illustrations (photographs, image graphs, diagrams or other illustrations) contained in the manuscript were uploaded as supplementary documents.

If any problems are found regarding these items, the authors will be informed about the impossibility of continuing the review procedures. The Executive Editor will request the necessary adjustments or additions and set a deadline.

Stage 2 – Peer review (scientific merit):

Submissions that pass Stage 1 will be able to advance in the review process, which includes the following steps:

- A section editor will be appointed to coordinate the review flow, together with the Editorial Board.

- Anti-plagiarism software will be employed to verify the similarity of the manuscript submitted with other products published and available.

- At least two reviewers will be appointed. They should provide their opinions within three weeks.

- The reviewers will examine the work, considering the six guiding aspects below:

1. Innovation, originality, relevance: Whether the topic and purposes of the manuscript address issues that are important to the area of study, with originality and relevance. Whether it points out a knowledge gap and produces results that improve it. Whether it contributes to new reflections or questions in the area.

2. Coherence: Whether the work presents a logical argument in synch with the theoretical-methodological framework adopted. Whether the goals are clearly stated, and efforts are made to achieve them accordingly. Whether conclusions are reached that are in synch with the argumentative process and purposes.

3. Strength: If the manuscript is able to convince at a level equivalent to existing productions on the topic. Whether the statements are sufficiently substantiated to the point of standing when confronted with contrary arguments.

4. Purposefulness/convincing power: Whether the work is able to apprehend elements of the phenomenon under study. Whether the analyzes are sufficient to capture, present and convince about the veracity of the results regarding the phenomenon.

5. Linguistic register and technical standards: Whether the text register indicates mastery of formal written language. Whether technical standards adopted by Movimento are covered.

6. Research and publication ethics: Whether the study complies with agreed research ethics standards for investigations interfacing with the social and human sciences. Whether the publication complies with the basic guidelines for integrity in scientific activity.

- In cases of disagreement, inaccuracy or incompleteness regarding reviewers’ opinions, section editors may appoint other reviewers to collect further information about the manuscript based on the guidelines adopted. These new reviewers will also have three weeks to issue their opinions. Based on reviewers’ recommendations and opinions, the editor in charge will present a proposal for the Editorial Board to decide on the status of the submission. Possible scenarios include:

* The manuscript is approved for publication.

* Corrections, modifications, or additions are requested from the authors.

* Publication is denied.

- A decision to request corrections, modifications or additions does not mean acceptance, but rather that new rounds of review may be requested. The authors will be informed of the decision on corrections, modifications or additions and will have 15 days to present their view and submit the new version of the manuscript together with their views on the demands, if necessary. This occurring, the manuscript will go on to a new review round in which reviewers will be consulted again, preferably those who demanded changes. They will have three weeks to verify if the recommendations have been met. In these new rounds, if necessary, the section editor may also appoint another reviewer, who will also have three weeks to issue a consolidated opinion.

- Once all rounds have been concluded based on reviewers’ recommendations and opinions, the section editor will present a proposal for the Editorial Board to decide on whether to finally accept or reject the submission.

Stage 3 – Final review of standards, metadata, and descriptors

Manuscripts approved for publication go on to the editing stage, when they will be prepared for publication through the following steps:

- Review of bibliographic standards (citations, references, text formatting, illustrations, charts, and tables). In this stage, the Editorial Board reserves the right to proceed with grammatical revision of the texts and make corrections, as long as they do not change content.

- Review of the manuscript’s descriptors and metadata, observing correspondence between information in the text file and that entered on the SEER platform.

- After these two reviews, the texts will be sent to the authors for reading and corrections until a final version is approved. The authors will have 15 days to comment and submit the final version on the platform. Afterwards, the articles will be sent for layout and publication.

- If there is no manifestation by the authors by that deadline, the articles will be disregarded.

Publication Frequency

1994 - Yearly

1995-2001 -  Semiannual

2002 - 2008 - Four-monthly

2009 - 2018 - Quarterly

2019 - Continuous publishing 

Open Access Policy

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.