Code of ethics and conduct
The Editorial Team of Revista IDeAS believes that all agents involved in the process of scientific publications must be aware of their responsibilities and the importance that research results represent for society.
In this sense, we present below the ethics and conduct guidelines for the main parties involved in this process: authors, reviewers, editors and editorial board.
Revista IDeAS will always seek to improve its guidelines of good practices, based on the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). For this reason, we also recommend reading the Guidelines on good publishing practices (COPE). Thus, we seek to achieve the highest ethical standards in publications.
Guidelines for authors
- It is up to the authors to send an original and unpublished contribution, which is not under evaluation for publication in another journal; otherwise, it must be justified in "Comments to the editor";
- undertake not to falsify and manufacture data, as well as to use piracy or plagiarism in the production of their texts;
- do not manipulate citations, data and information in order to obtain the desired research result in the material produced;
- accurately and correctly identify the authorship and co-authorship of the article (full name, full institutional affiliation, municipality and country);
- all authors contributed significantly to the research;
- all authors are obliged to provide retractions or corrections of errors when detected;
- the corresponding author is responsible for ensuring that the information and descriptions provided are accurate and agreed upon by all authors;
- each person listed in the authorship must review the successive versions of the text and approve the final version, assuming ethical and academic co-responsibility for the entirety of its content;
- inform possible conflicts of interest that may occur when submitting the article, whether academic, financial, personal or political;
- be available to make changes to the manuscript, if necessary;
- do not overuse self-quotation. In the same sense, do not use specific references that aim to manipulate impact factors, as well as self-plagiarism;
- check the existence of copyright of the images that will possibly be used in the construction of the text, identifying, whenever used, their authorship and sources.
Guidelines for reviewers
- It is up to the reviewers the role of directly interfering in the quality of each article submitted;
- collaborate voluntarily, being aware of the importance of your collaboration with the journal and science;
- inform editors when they are not comfortable evaluating an article due to the thematic distance from the text in their area of study;
- carry out a careful reading and with the utmost demands regarding the different evaluation criteria, without giving up the secrecy and respect and cordiality to the authors;
- pay attention to the quality and representativeness of the title, the effectiveness of the abstract in conveying the essence of the article, the critical correction of the abstract, the adequacy and coherence of the methodology in relation to the objectives of the article, the appropriate analysis of the results, the consequent completion of the work and consistency of the text;
- inform possible conflicts of interest that may occur when evaluating an article, whether academic, financial, personal or political, and decline from the evaluation;
- be aware of the quality of the writing, the objectivity and clarity of the article, the correct use of terms, the representativeness and adequacy of graphics, tables, photos and other figures, and the relevance and updating of references;
- maintain cordiality with the authors to make constructive observations regarding the manuscripts;
- maintain total confidentiality of the tasks you are performing, in addition to ensuring the effectiveness of blind peer evaluation;
- reviewers are not entitled to use any part of the article they are reviewing.
Guidelines for editors
- Editors and publishers are responsible for complying with the guidelines and protocols established by the journal;
- use the journal's official communication channels to communicate with reviewers and authors, either by email revistaideas@gmail.com or the OJS system;
- identify yourself when communicating with authors, reviewers or institutions;
- the editor or publisher designated to conduct the peer review of a manuscript must have no conflict of interest in relation to this task;
- treat each author with dignity and courtesy, regardless of the theme and judgment of the article;
- judge each submission equally and transparently;
- provide the necessary guidelines and dictate the sending process to the author;
- do not reveal any information about authors, reviewers or information about the article to anyone - complete confidentiality is mandatory;
- be responsible for a quick and transparent peer review process;
- apply a final judgment to the articles attributed to him within the stipulated period, with due reason and clarifications;
- ensure that the accepted articles have their authorship properly identified, institutional link, city, biography and contact email;
- communicate with reviewers or authors, depending on the stage of processing the article, in case of delay;
- be available for any consultation regarding the reconsideration of editorial decisions and must provide the decision quickly and clearly, with the appropriate reasons;
- for any designated manuscript, the editor is responsible for selecting possible reviewers, considering their knowledge in specific areas and continuously monitoring the review process;
- keep in mind the time necessary to issue an opinion on the articles before sending any reminder to the referee, so that he receives the appropriate time that the article requires;
- do everything possible to avoid overloading reviewers, volunteers in their functions;
- if any proposal for a special edition is submitted to the journal, the Editorial Team must send it to the Editorial Board to review the proposal and assess its compliance with the scope of the journal and judge the relevance and relevance of the theme;
- editors are responsible for coordinating and managing critical decisions, together with the cooperation of the Editorial Board.
Guidelines for the Editorial Board
- The members of the Editorial Board are responsible for assisting in the formulation of the editorial policy and keeping an eye on the overall quality of the journal;
- contribute to the dissemination of the journal among its peers;
- contribute with reviews, according to availability;
- contribute with the appointment of new reviewers;
- assess the quality of the journal and published articles;
- recommend thematic dossiers and assess the relevance of proposals for thematic dossiers, if requested;
- evaluate the transparency and information provided by the journal's website;
- Members of the Editorial Board may also be invited to write editorials for editions.
Conflict of interests
The conflict of interest arises when any of the parties involved has links with institutions or interests that may impair the fairness of the investigation or restrict the competence and impartiality of the scientific publication process.
Conflicts can be related to personal, commercial, political, academic or financial issues. It is possible that such questions are not apparent, but may affect the scientific judgment of researchers in a concurrent/divergent or favorable way. Such interests, when relevant, should be declared to editors by researchers, authors and referees.
Relevant conflicts are those that, when revealed later, would make a reasonable reader feel misled or deceived.
Authors. Authors may previously refuse referees so that editors do not take them into account in the selection – a note can be added in the submission. Authors must identify in the manuscript all financial support obtained for the execution of the work and other personal connections regarding the performance of the work. They must ensure that the research results were not influenced by external factors or misconduct, such as exchanging financial incentives for positive results. The purpose of the research cannot have been influenced by a secondary interest that may impair professional judgment and project objectives.
Reviewers. Reviewers who finds himself in a situation of conflict of interest must inform the responsible editor with a view to the best solution - which, in most cases, is the referral for his replacement.
Editors. They must select referees who have no conflict of interest with the authors; protect the identity of reviewers; maintain neutrality and objectivity in the peer review process. When articles in which they have a direct or indirect interest are submitted to the journal, that editor or publisher who does not have such a conflict will be fully responsible for forwarding, evaluating and deciding on the publication.
Funders. They are responsible for respecting the autonomy and independence of a researcher.
Dealing with misconduct
In order to increase editorial transparency, Revista IDeAS established the following guidelines regarding the identification of unethical behavior or misconduct:
- suspicions of misconduct and unethical behavior can be reported to editors at any time, by anyone;
- cases are not limited to the guidelines of the Code of Ethics and Conduct;
- the person who identifies and reports misconduct and unethical behavior must seek to gather and provide sufficient information and evidence for an investigation to be initiated;
- allegations must be properly addressed and treated in the same way, until a decision is reached;
- the issue identified may be intentional, due to negligence or imprudence.
The authors are made aware and need to confirm upon submission that their submitted manuscript does not involve any form of research misconduct. Examples of research misconduct that concern us in particular: plagiarism (including self-plagiarism), manipulation of authorship (adding authors with no significant contribution or removing contributing authors), falsification of data or research errors, interference in the review process, appropriation of research results, violation of research regulations, undisclosed conflicts of interest, among others.
Submissions associated with research misconduct will be rejected after verification.
Any litigation case will be analyzed by the Editorial Committee with the assistance of the Editorial Board when necessary.
When dealing with complaints, in addition to its own guidelines, COPE guidelines are followed.
Investigating
- an initial decision must be made by the responsible editor, who must consult or seek guidance from colleagues of the Editorial Team and then, if deemed necessary, the Editorial Board;
- evidence must be collected, while avoiding spreading any claims beyond those that need to be reported;
- the investigation must be confidential;
- the examination of the absences must focus on not only the particular act or omission, but also on the intention of the author, editor or reviewer.
Less serious misconduct
- minor misconduct can be treated without the need for extensive consultation;
- in any case, the author must have the opportunity to respond to any allegations.
- correction needs must be made immediately by the responsible editor;
Serious misconduct
- serious absences may require consultation with a limited number of specialists so that more significant actions can be taken;
Sanctions
When misconduct and unethical behavior are identified, the following actions may be applied. They are in ascending order of severity and can be applied separately or together).
- inform or educate the author or referee where there seems to be a misunderstanding or misapplication of standards
good practices;
- contingent statement for authors or referees covering bad behavior and a warning for future behavior;
- publication of a formal notice detailing the misconduct;
- publishing an editorial detailing the misconduct;
- retraction or formal withdrawal of a journal publication;
- imposing a formal embargo on a person's contributions for a defined period;
- report the case and the outcome to a professional organization or higher authority for further investigations and actions.