Evaluación externa del artículo Vol. 22 N.2

A panorama of Brazilian documental cine-activism in the 2010s

Márcio Zanetti Negrini, Giulianna Ronna Nogueira, Couto Giancarlo, Cristiane Freitas Gutfreind.

Section:  Miscelánea

 

Reviwer A:

Is the article well written and organised. Is it easy to read?

Yes, the essay is very well organized and structured. The argument is clear and the text reads very well.
Regarding more formal elements, my suggestion is for the text to be read once again by a native speaker of English to catch any typos it might have. I marked at least two while reading it. See the doc. attached.

Is the title, as well as the abstract and keywords, adequate and related to the content?

Yes.

Are the tables, graphics, photos and visuals appropriate, correctly referenced and of good visual quality?

N/A.

Does the article include correct links and references supporting the argument?

Yes.

Please, comment on the most relevant aspects (positive points and areas to improve) of the reviewed article.

The essay is very well organized and structured. The argument is clear and the text reads very well. The topic is very interesting and it has the potencial to create conceptual dialogues. Brazilian documentary production is vibrant and deserves to be disseminated and studied.
This essay makes an excellent contribution to the journal and to the field of film studies.

Would you suggest any changes or make any recommendations to improve the quality of the article?

Regarding more formal elements, my suggestion is for the text to be read once again by a native speaker of English to catch any typos it might have. I marked at least two while reading it. See the doc. attached.

 

Reviewer B:

Is the article well written and organised. Is it easy to read?

-

Is the title, as well as the abstract and keywords, adequate and related to the content?

1. The title is listed as "Brazilian documental cine-activism." However, the English abstract actually refers to the topic as "documentary cine-activism", and "documentary" seems more appropriate. "Cine-activism" is a possible term within Latin American studies in English, although cinema activism or film activism are more common terms. Given the importance of "street demonstrations" to the corpus of texts, recognition of this aspect would be a helpful identifier to make the title more descriptive.
2. Identify who Rouseff is (Brazilian President Dilma Rouseff...)
3. It would be beneficial to identify some of the documentaries surveyed in the article up front in the abstract/resumen.
4. The final line of the abstract would be more effective if it stated explicitly "how" the new technologies are updating militant cinema.
5. There are some wrong words or syntactical issues in the abstract. For example, "In the 2010s" should read "during the 2010s."

Are the tables, graphics, photos and visuals appropriate, correctly referenced and of good visual quality?

Not applicable

Does the article include correct links and references supporting the argument?

Yes.

Please, comment on the most relevant aspects (positive points and areas to improve) of the reviewed article.

 

Would you suggest any changes or make any recommendations to improve the quality of the article?

(Reviewer B asked to keep their comments private for the authorship)

 

Editorial report:

 

The format still needs to be revised by the authors. In the attachment, you will find some necessary changes to align the article with the journal's guidelines, following APA 7th edition. Please carefully review and adjust the format before resubmitting it.

One of the reviewers has additional content and style comments on the article and recommends revising them before it can be published. We encourage the authros to carefully read the suggestions and consider them before resubmitting as well.

The reviewer mentions that the article shows great promise, and it is important for drawing attention to an undertheorized aspect of contemporary Brazilian cinema that is a vital part of democratic processes/protests. The article also demonstrates an attempt to discover a throughline linking recent documentary cinema that has received little systemic/systematized analysis. The article does, however, require significant revision.

1. Most pressingly, the article reads like it has been translated into English. Given that Teknocultura accepts Spanish and Portuguese submissions, the reviewer suggests that these languages would be a more advantageous means of showcasing the author’s novel topic and focus. If the author wishes to continue in English, the reviewer suggests that the article is professionally edited to address numerous issues of translation that impact its messaging. We understand that the article has been professionally translated, but it seems to be several errors of style that we recommend revising again.

If pursuing publication in English, the reviewer suggests removing references to the royal “we” and making sentences more active. For example, “Our purpose in this paper” would become “The purpose of this paper.” This is a recommendation, and the authors may choose to maintain their preferred style.

3. The introduction surveys a history of militant cinema in relation to activism before mentioning the two trends to be examined. The final paragraph of the introduction on p. 4 should explain what conclusions will be reached regarding the two.

4. Rethink the section titles for syntax and clarity

5. Although some of the films are collective in nature, can authorship be attributed to any of them? Should directors be acknowledged beyond a simple last name at the first moment of identifying the corpus?

6. A suggestion of the reviewer is to consider how the films can be contextualized beyond their content. For example, it would be helpful to learn how these films have been distributed and consumed. Have some featured in film festivals or had a commercial run? Have others only been circulated online? Have there been any repercussions for the works?

7. Similar to the final paragraph of the introduction, how can the conclusion be further developed and expanded to reflect on the notion of how this democratization of the filmmaking process affects both social actors and filmmakers, along with access to such documentaries? In other words, what are the implications of this important trend?

 

Regarding the title and abstract:

 

1. The title is listed as "Brazilian documental cine-activism." However, the English abstract actually refers to the topic as "documentary cine-activism", and "documentary" seems more appropriate. "Cine-activism" is a possible term within Latin American studies in English, although cinema activism or film activism are more common terms. Given the importance of "street demonstrations" to the corpus of texts, recognition of this aspect would be a helpful identifier to make the title more descriptive.

2. Identify who Rouseff is (Brazilian President Dilma Rouseff...)

3. It would be beneficial to identify some of the documentaries surveyed in the article up front in the abstract/resumen.

4. The final line of the abstract would be more effective if it stated explicitly "how" the new technologies are updating militant cinema.

5. There are some wrong words or syntactical issues in the abstract and in the text. For example, "In the 2010s" should read "during the 2010s."

 

The text was modified attending to the reviews