About the Journal

2. FOCUS AND SCOPE

A&C – Administrative and Constitutional Law Review is a quarterly scientific journal published by the Romeu Felipe Bacellar Institute of Law (Instituto de Direito Romeu Felipe Bacellar), with the support of the Paraná Institute of Administrative Law - IPDA (Instituto Paranaense de Direito Administrativo). Its primary objective is to disseminate research on contemporary issues in the fields of Administrative Law and Constitutional Law, addressing an audience composed of legal scholars, undergraduate and graduate students, and professionals working in Public Law.

The journal’s editorial line, established by its Editorial Board, composed of distinguished Brazilian and foreign legal scholars, is focused on research developed within the field of Constitutional Law and Administrative Law dogmatics. Particular emphasis is placed on the effectiveness of their legal institutions, not only in Brazil but also in other countries, highlighting the intersection between Public Administration and the Constitution, as well as the critical analysis of innovations in Public Law, especially in Latin America and European countries of Latin legal tradition.

The journal has been classified in stratum A1 of the CAPES Qualis evaluation system (Coordination for the Improvement of Higher Education Personnel - Brazilian Ministry of Education).

According to the CNPq classification, the journal’s thematic coverage encompasses the following areas:

Major area: Applied Social Sciences (6.00.00.00-7) / Area: Law (6.01.00.00-1) / Subarea: Public Law (6.01.02.00-4) / Specialty: Constitutional Law (6.01.02.05-5)

Major area: Applied Social Sciences (6.00.00.00-7) / Area: Law (6.01.00.00-1) / Subarea: Public Law (6.01.02.00-4) / Specialty: Administrative Law (6.01.02.06-3)

3. BRIEF HISTORY

The journal was founded in 1999, at the initiative of its Director General, Prof. Dr. Romeu Felipe Bacellar Filho, inspired by the Argentine legal journal AeDP – Actualidad en el Derecho Público, which had been created a few years earlier. Its first ten issues were published by Editora Juruá Publishing, and from issue no. 11 onward, in 2003, up to the present day, the journal has been edited and published by Editora Fórum, in both print and digital formats.

Since 2016, with the aim of aligning itself with Open Science guidelines, the journal has been published in open access through the OJS platform, subject to a one-year embargo period (access to the four most recent issues restricted to subscribers). The journal is indexed in the two most prestigious international databases: Web of Science (Emerging Sources Citation Index), since 2017, and Scopus, since 2019.

At the national level, the journal has been classified as Qualis A1 by CAPES in the two most recent evaluation cycles (2017–2020 and 2021–2024).

4. PUBLICATION FREQUENCY

The journal adopts a quarterly publication frequency. Four issues are published each year:

• January/March
• April/June
• July/September
• October/December

5. PEER REVIEW PROCESS

5.1. Articles are selected through peer review, in two stages: (i) internal review by the Editorial Board (desk review); and (ii) external peer review, which may take different forms in accordance with Open Science practices, as described below.

5.2. In the desk review stage, the article is checked to see whether it strictly complies with all the requirements set forth in the Guidelines for Authors, such as authorship requirements, respect for the number of pages, compliance with the journal's methodological standards regarding citations and bibliographic references, the theme's fit within the editorial line, originality and innovation of the approach, quality of writing, among others. In the event of non-compliance with any of the guidelines, whether for reasons of form or content, the article will be rejected outright.

5.3. Once approved in the desk review stage, the article is submitted to the peer review procedure, adopting the double-blind method as the initial standard: double anonymity of the author and the reviewers. The article is sent without identification of authorship to at least two reviewers who are members of the journal's Board of Reviewers or designated ad hoc, affiliated with national and foreign higher education institutions.

5.4. Authors who choose to deposit their articles on preprint servers are aware that the deposit makes the work public and allows possible identification of authorship, so that reviewers may occasionally come to know the authorship of the reviewed work. In this case, the double blind peer review process (with double anonymity, of the author and the reviewers) becomes single blind peer review (peer review with simple anonymity), in which only the anonymity of one of the parties to the process – the reviewers – is guaranteed.

5.5. In accordance with Open Science practices, the author has the option of authorizing the editors to promote their direct interaction with the reviewers of the article, waiving the anonymous nature of the review, if the reviewers also agree. In this case, the open peer review modality is adopted. This option must be expressed by the author at the time of submission of the article, in the Form 1 - Authors data and open science compliance, available for download at: https://revistaaec.com/index.php/revistaaec/libraryFiles/downloadPublic/7. If this modality is adopted, the authors agree that the journal will grant the reviewers the possibility of publishing the reviews in the same issue in which the article will be published.

5.6. To be approved, the article must receive two favorable opinions for publication, either as it is or through corrections suggested by the reviewers. If there is at least one opinion for rejection, the article may be rejected, if the Editorial Board considers the reasons for this to be sufficient. In the event of a dispute between the two reviewers, the article will be submitted to a third reviewer.

5.7. The criteria used in the evaluation form are as follows:

a) Is the reviewer in a position to evaluate the article, since there is no conflict of interest?
b) Does the article address a topic that falls within the focus and scope of the journal?
c) Is the definition of the topic and the approach to the research original, innovative and relevant, distinct from other publications on the topic, to the point of justifying a new publication on the subject?
d) Is the text well written, clear and cohesive, free of typos and spelling errors?
e) Does the title clearly and sufficiently reflect the content of the article?
f) Does the article comply with the formatting and scientific methodology standards described in the Guidelines for Authors (ABNT)?
g) Does the abstract indicate the research problem, the objectives of the article, the methodology used and the main conclusions of the research?
h) Does the article present an extensive and in-depth bibliographic survey, which includes a significant number of specific and updated bibliographic references that already exist on the topic?
i) Are the topics covered in the article explored in theoretical depth, examining the issue under debate from different perspectives and considering arguments contrary to those defended in the article?
j) Does the article present arguments and effective contributions developed by the author of the article himself, without relying on excessively long direct quotations from other authors?
k) Are the concepts used throughout the text generally correct?
l) Does the content comply with the criteria of not disseminating prejudice and/or defamation and slander that harm the integrity of the readers and/or individuals cited?

5.8. The possible results of the evaluation process are as follows:

a) Article without restrictions on scientific content; may be accepted for publication.
b) Article with minor restrictions; may be accepted as long as the corrections indicated in the review are made.
c) Article with major restrictions on content; should not be accepted for publication.

5.9. The final decision regarding the acceptance, rejection, or request for revisions of a manuscript lies exclusively with the Editorial Board of the journal, under the coordination of the Editor-in-Chief.

5.10. The evaluation process usually takes up to 6 months in cases of rejection by desk review, and 6 to 12 months in cases of submission of the article for peer review.

6. DIGITAL PRESERVATION AND ARCHIVING

The journal uses the LOCKSS system to create a distributed archiving system among participating libraries, allowing the creation of permanent archives of the journal for preservation and restoration purposes.

LOCKSS system has permission to collect, preserve, and serve this Archival Unit.

Digital preservation is carried out by Cariniana – the Brazilian Network of Digital Preservation Services (IBICT – Brazilian Institute of Information in Science and Technology) through the LOCKSS system. Information on preservation is available under the Archival Status tab on the journal’s page in The Keepers Registry.

7. ARTICLE PROCESSING AND PUBLICATION COSTS (APCs)

Submission, processing and publication of articles are free of charge, with no fees (APCs) charged to authors.

8. SPONSORS

The journal is funded by the Romeu Felipe Bacellar Institute of Law (Instituto de Direito Romeu Felipe Bacellar) and by Editora Fórum.

9. INDEXING

The journal is indexed in the following databases and information sources:

• Scopus
• Web of Science
• Latindex
• ERIHPLUS - European Reference Index for the Humanities and the Social Sciences
• EBSCO
• CrossRef
• Google Scholar
• MIAR - Information Matrix for the Analysis of Journals
• WorldCat
• BASE - Bielefeld Academic Search Engine
• Zeitschriften Datenbank
• OpenAlex
• Diadorim
• Miguilim
• OasisBR: Portal brasileiro de publicações científicas em acesso aberto
• RVBI - Rede Virtual de Bibliotecas do Congresso Nacional
• Red de Revistas de Derecho Constitucional