The scientifi c publication process is quite complex in that it is eminently human, conveyed in an intricate network of subjects such as authors, editors-in-chief, associate editors, ad hoc reviewers, funding entities, scientifi c associations and publishers, among other institutions. This makes the process both unique and plural, since these stakeholders have diff erent interests in terms of scientifi c publication. These interests are sometimes veiled, but perceived mainly by those who bear the responsibility of off ering the scientifi c community from a certain fi eld of knowledge a quality journal, that is, those who outline competitive editorial management. Promptness, agility, high impact indexes, indexation in international databases and visibility are just some of the excellence criteria on the agenda of Editors-in-Chief and Editorial Boards, under penalty of losing vital ground gained in the scientifi c world. It is through these channels that authors select a journal in which to publish their scientifi c articles, and rightly so, since they are disseminating the construction of knowledge or science in natura in order to transform realities, re(direct) views and/or paradigms. However, it is important to note that these plural expectations are not always consistent with the reality of what goes on behind the scenes (1) during the scientifi c publication process. This often goes unnoticed by authors and particularly funding agencies and/or those responsible for imposing criteria and metrics that do not always consider the everyday operations of journals in their eff orts to ensure the quality of the product off ered to the scientifi c community. It is against this backdrop that I conducted a national overview of scientifi c publication: challenges for editors. In recent years, criteria and strategies to ensure the visibility of national journals have been a continuous feature of debates at scientifi c publishing events. These include criteria adopted to classify journals, such as Qualis CAPES in the fi eld of nursing (2) , and those recently established to maintain and/or submit new journals to SciELO Brasil (3) , as well as a project to internationalize CAPES' Brazilian scientifi c journals, which proposes the adoption of international publishers with a view to improving production, hosting and visibility. These fall into three major categories: internationalization, professionalization and fi nancial autonomy. Although this intention is noble and in line with the goal of visibility and consumption of Brazilian researcher's scientifi c articles by the international community, an analysis of these journals reveals that their creators lack understanding of the reality of Editors-in-Chief responsible for editorial management. There are relevant regional conditions specifi c to Brazilian research that must be carefully considered in these analyses given their importance in the national context.
