Ethics and Retraction
EDITORIAL CODE OF CONDUCT FROM THE LABOR AND HUMAN DEVELOPMENT LAW JOURNAL (RJTDH)
Abstract: establishes, within the scope of the RJTDH, policy and ethical guidelines on publication, stipulates duties of editors, evaluators, and authors, and establishes the procedure for the investigation of scientific misconduct and retraction
PART I - DUTIES OF EDITORS, EVALUATORS, AND AUTHORS
1. This Code of Editorial Conduct materializes the unrestricted commitment of the LABOR AND HUMAN DEVELOPMENT LAW JOURNAL (RJTDH) to the ethics and quality in the publication, supporting and claiming, as a condition of participation in its editorial process, compliance by the editorial team, the Editorial Board, authors and evaluators of the internationally established standards of ethical integrity in research and publication.
2. This Editorial Code of Conduct observes the guidelines of good practices in publication established by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), also drawing inspiration from the guidelines on ethics in research and scientific publication offered pela Scientific Electronic Library Online (SciELO), by Elsevier and the São Paulo State Research Support Foundation (FAPESP).
3. The RJTDH does not allow the publication of manuscripts that evidence the practice of any type of scientific misconduct, especially those of a serious (manufacture, falsification, and plagiarism) and discriminatory nature.
4. Due to its commitment to ethical integrity standards in research and publication, each of the actors participating in the editorial process of the RJTDH is assumed to be committed to the ethical obligations set forth below.
4.1. The duties of the editors are:
4.1.1. Decision on publication: it is the exclusive responsibility of the RJTDH editors the decision on which of the submitted manuscripts should be published, to be taken in accordance with the editorial policies defined by the editorial board and in strict compliance with legal requirements regarding defamation, copyright infringement and or plagiarism. Editors may refer to the Editorial Board or other editorial team members in the decision-making process.
4.1.2.Non-discriminatory treatment: the editors should value manuscript submissions solely on the basis of academic merit, disregarding the person of the authors and their institution, including race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political position.
4.1.3. Fidelity to editorial policy: editors and other members of the editorial board must be faithful to the editorial policy and ethical guidelines of the RJTDH.
4.1.4. Confidentiality: publishers and any member of the editorial team must ensure the confidentiality of manuscripts submitted to the RJTDH, not disclosing any information about the submission to any other person, except for the author's own, reviewers, potential contributors, or editorial advisors, as the case may be and due to editorial relevance.
4.1.5. Conflicts of interest: The editors shall refrain from evaluating submissions in which there is any conflict of interest, personal, commercial, political, academic, financial, or otherwise, as well as conflict of interest resulting from competitive or collaborative relationships or any other type of relationship or connections with any of the authors, companies or institutions to which the submissions are linked.
4.1.6. Disclosure: The editors should not use unpublished content used in RJTDH submissions without the express written consent of the authors.
4.1.7. Fair editorial process: editors must ensure the existence of a fair, impartial, and timely scientific evaluation process, as well as transparency in the processes of editing and publishing manuscripts.
4.1.8. Rejection of scientific misconduct: editors have the duty to identify or, if they do not, to receive and examine, with acuity and confidentiality, all communication of scientific misconduct relating to a manuscript that has been submitted to them or that has already been published, mainly investigating it according to pre-established and public knowledge fair procedure.
4.1.9. Constant improvement: editors shall constantly improve the RJTDH in light of the ethics and transparency of the editorial process and the quality of the published content.
4.2. The duties of the reviewers are:
4.2.1. Contribution to editorial decisions: peer review helps editors make editorial decisions and, through editorial communications with the authors, can also assist them in improving the manuscript.
4.2.2. Punctuality: selected reviewers who do not feel qualified to evaluate a submission or who know that it will not be possible for them to submit their review within the proposed deadline should notify to the editors and decline the evaluation process.
4.2.3. Confidentiality: submissions submitted for review should be treated by evaluators as confidential documents and should not be shown to or discussed with third parties.
4.2.4. Conflicts of interest: the reviewers should not accept the assessment of submissions in which they have any conflict of interest, be it personal, commercial, political, academic, financial, or of other nature, as well as conflict of interest resulting from a competitive or collaborative relationship or any other type of relationship or connection with any of the authors, companies or institutions that are related to submissions. Likewise, whenever the manuscript does not fit into their research area or field of knowledge, reviewers should inform the editors and decline the evaluation.
4.2.5. Standards of objectivity: reviews shall be conducted objectively and reviewers shall express their opinions clearly, with arguments of support, and without personal criticisms of the authors. The recommendation of acceptance or rejection of an article shall be based on its academic importance, originality, and clarity, as well as on the validity of the study and its framing within the scope of the RJTDH.
4.2.6. Identification of bibliographic sources: reviewers shall recommend relevant and accessible works that have not been mentioned by the authors. The reviewers shall also draw the attention of the editors to any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under evaluation and any other published document of which they have personal knowledge.
4.2.7. Disclosure: privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review shall be kept confidential, without any use for personal gain.
4.2.8. Communication of scientific misconduct: reviewers commit themselves to the duty of attention to the identification of verifiable scientific misconduct in the reviewed manuscripts, especially those considered serious (manufacture, falsification, and plagiarism), refraining from tolerating or omitting this type of practice and communicating the finding in their review.
4.3. It is the duties of the authors:
4.3.1. General rules: authors of original manuscripts shall present an accurate account of the research performed, as well as objective analysis of its meaning. Underlying data shall be displayed accurately in the text. A document must contain enough details and references to allow others to replicate the research. Fraudulent or intentionally inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable.
4.3.2. Originality and good scientific conduct: at the time of submission, the authors must declare that their works are totally original, as well as the absence of scientific misconduct related to the research whose publication is intended by the RJTDH, especially those considered serious (manufacturing, falsifying and or plagiarism).
4.3.3. Research with human beings: manuscripts that communicate results of research carried out with human beings must count, at the moment of their submission, with the author's statement of having obtained previous authorization for the realization of the investigation by the competent ethics body in research with human beings and of having taken the free and informed consent of the research participants, with the authors presenting the documents that prove these authorizations, should they be demanded by the RJTDH.
4.3.4. Multiple, redundant, or competing publications: authors shall not, in general, publish manuscripts that describe essentially the same research in more than one scientific journal that requires originality. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal simultaneously, or publishing the same research in different journals, constitutes unethical and unacceptable publication behavior. Within the context of the RJTDH, an exception to this rule is the submission of a translation of an already published article, an instance in which the submission shall already clarify this fact and indicate, precisely, the original bibliographic reference of the manuscript.
4.3.5. Identification of bibliographic sources: the proper recognition of third-party research must be done in any and all situations. The authors should mention the publications that influenced the determination of the nature of the reported work. Information obtained on a private level, such as in informal conversations, correspondence or discussions with third parties, should not be used or reported without explicit written permission from the source. Information obtained in the course of confidential activities, such as submissions for evaluation or financing projects, should not be used without the explicit and written permission of the authors of the work involved in these activities.
4.3.6. Authorship: authorship shall be attributed to those who contributed significantly to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the reported study. All those who have made significant contributions shall be listed as co-authors. Persons who have participated in substantive aspects of the research project should be recognized or listed as contributors or collaborators. The author responsible for the submission must ensure that only the appropriate co-authors are included in the manuscript and that all of them have read and approved the final version of the document and have agreed to submit it to the RJTDH.
4.3.7. Disclosure and conflicts of interest: Authors must disclose, in their manuscripts, any conflict of personal, commercial, political, academic, financial, or other nature that could influence the results or interpretations in their submissions. All sources of financial support for the project should be disclosed.
4.3.8. Fundamental errors in published articles: when authors discover a significant error or inaccuracy in their own published manuscripts, it is their obligation to immediately notify the editors of the RJTDH and cooperate with publishers to portray or correct the article.
PART II - SCIENTIFIC MISCONDUCT AND ITS INVESTIGATION
Typification
5. RJTDH repudiates the dissemination of information, analyses, research, and communications based on practices that constitute scientific misconduct, especially those of an ethical and discriminatory nature.
6. Scientific misconduct is considered, among others:
6.1. improper declaration of authorship;
6.2. false declaration of originality;
6.3. redundant or competing submissions;
6.4. non-disclosure or pointing of any conflict of interest of personal, commercial, political, academic, financial or other nature that could influence the results or interpretations in their submissions;
6.5. infringement on the intellectual property of third parties;
6.6. infringement on the legal protection of personal or institutional data.
7. Serious scientific misconduct is considered:
7.1. Manufacture or affirmation that data, procedures, or results were obtained or conducted when, in reality, they were not.
7.2. Falsification or presentation of data, procedures, or research results in a materially modified, imprecise, or incomplete manner, to the point of being able to interfere in the evaluation of the scientific weight that actually confers on the conclusions that are extracted from them.
7.3. Plagiarism or the use of verbal, oral, or written ideas or formulations of others, without giving them, expressly and clearly, due credit, in order to reasonably generate the perception that they are ideas or formulations of their own authorship.
Reporting of editorial or scientific misconduct
8. It is the duty of the Editorial Team of the RJTDH to be aware of the practice of scientific misconduct and act on it as soon as it identifies the practice, regardless of provocation.
9. Since the ethical integrity of the research is the object of self-regulation and self-control by the scientific community, any researcher who has well-founded suspicions of the possible occurrence of scientific misconduct related to a manuscript under examination or published by RJTDH, in ordinary circumstances, should inform them to his editorial team, through the following e-mail address: editorial@revistatdh.org.
9.1. Anonymous complaints of scientific misconduct will be accepted and processed, provided that they are presented with the precise delimitation of the facts, admitting these clear and plausible typifications as the practice of scientific misconduct, as well as with perfect identification of the practitioner(s).
9.2. Reports/complaints without minimum specification of the conduct with clear and plausible typification as the practice of scientific misconduct or identification of their practitioner(s) may be considered inept by the editors, resulting in the preliminary rejection of the communication, which will be informed to the complainant, which, in turn, may submit a new, more detailed communication, if he or she deems it relevant.
10. The examination of the report/complaint of scientific misconduct related to a manuscript under examination or published by RJTDH will always be attributed to the person or group of people who do not compose the editorial team of RJTDH.
10.1. This designation is an exclusive act of the Editor-In-Chief, which does not include a unilateral and discretionary decision on the non-investigation of the complaint, except when the communication is inept, in which case should be made explicit in a reasoned decision addressed to those who submitted the report.
11. The authorship and content of any communication of scientific misconduct related to a manuscript under examination or published by RJTDH will be protected in secret, with the exception of the strict hypotheses of exercise of the right of defense by the accused, in compliance with the following procedural guidelines.
Preliminary Assessment
12. Upon receiving an allegation of scientific misconduct related to a manuscript submitted or published by RJTDH, a preliminary evaluation process will be initiated to determine:
12.1.whether the definition of editorial or scientific misconduct applies to the alleged facts;
12.2. whether the claim is sufficiently reliable and specific to, possibly in conjunction with other available or easily accessible information, make plausible the existence of evidence of the occurrence of the alleged facts and, therefore, justify the initiation of a formal investigation process.
13. The preliminary evaluation process will be conducted by one or more formally appointed persons, at the discretion of the Editor-in-Chief, to do so. Designated persons designated shall have the expertise required by the nature of the claim in question and shall not have potential conflicts of interest which may reasonably be perceived as detrimental to the impartiality of the assessment. In the event of allegations of serious scientific misconduct (fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism), the case shall be conducted by a Preliminary Assessment Commission composed of at least three (3) persons.
14. Ordinarily, a preliminary evaluation process must be carried out within a period of not more than thirty (30) days, counted from the receipt of the communication.
15. At the end of the preliminary evaluation process, those who have conducted it must present and justify the findings of the case in a detailed and confidential report addressed to the Editor-in-Chief of the RJTDH.
16. If the preliminary assessment concludes that the possibility of scientific misconduct is plausible, the Editor-in-Chief of the RJTDH must formally notify the accused of the existence and nature of the allegation, by forwarding him/her the preliminary evaluation report.
17. In the event of an allegation of scientific misconduct not considered serious or plausible, if the preliminary assessment process concludes that the prosecution relates substantially to divergences between researchers or any other person, physical or legal, the Preliminary Evaluator or the Preliminary Committee of Inquiry shall endeavor to resolve these divergences through mediation procedures. Once the differences are resolved, the case may be closed, provided that there is no potential harm to third parties. The Preliminary Evaluator or the Preliminary Committee of Inquiry shall, in this case, inform the Editor-in-Chief of the RJTDH of the existence and nature of the claim and the solution found for the divergences.
Formal Process of Investigation
18. In the event of a preliminary conclusive assessment of the plausibility of the possible occurrence of scientific misconduct, a formal investigation of the alleged misconduct should be initiated immediately unless those who are being accused admit to its occurrence and therefore take full responsibility.
18.1. In the event of such admission by the accused, his/her formal statement must be attached to the preliminary evaluation report and immediately transmitted to the Editors-In-Chief of the RJTDH.
18.2. In extraordinary situations, where immediate notification of the accused may clearly harm the investigation process of the alleged facts, such action may be postponed, on reasonable grounds and at the judgment of those who are in charge of the preliminary assessment, for the shortest period of time clearly justifiable in view of the efficiency of the process.
19. A formal process of investigating scientific misconduct is intended to:
19.1. collect and examine evidence and other elements of conviction, such as testimonials and technical advice from ad hoc consultants, that are relevant to the establishment of the degree of probability of alleged scientific misconduct;
19.2. determine, on the basis of the weighting of probabilities, whether the evidence and other elements of conviction deemed as favorable to the conclusion that the alleged misconduct has occurred outweigh the unfavorable ones;
19.3. if misconduct has been demonstrated, determine its level of severity and the degree of responsibility to be attributed to the accused;
19.4. suggest punitive and corrective measures in relation to the scientific damage caused by the alleged misconduct to be taken by the RJTDH.
20. Ordinarily, a formal investigation process shall be carried out within a period of not more than 90 (ninety) days from the end of the preliminary evaluation process.
21. The initiation of a formal investigation procedure shall be notified immediately to the accused. This notification is not to be confused with the one provided above, referring to the knowledge of the accused of the content of the preliminary evaluation report.
22. Once initiated, a formal investigation process may be interrupted only if the accused expressly admits the occurrence of the alleged scientific misconduct and takes full responsibility for the practice. The withdrawal of a complaint of scientific misconduct and the dissolution of the link between the accused and the research institution to which it is linked does not interrupt the inquisitive process.
23. The formal process for investigation of scientific misconduct must be conducted by a Committee of Inquiry composed of at least three (3) non-members of the RJTDH Editorial Team, formally appointed by the Editor-in-Chief of the RJTDH, among whom shall be the Preliminary Evaluator or the members of the Preliminary Evaluation Committee, except in the case of a motivated request for non-appointment formulated by the Preliminary Evaluator herself. Members of the Committee of Inquiry shall have the expertise required by the nature of the allegation in question and shall not have potential conflicts of interest which may reasonably be perceived as detrimental to the impartiality of the assessment.
23.1. In the case of allegations of scientific misconduct considered SERIOUS, the formal investigation process shall be conducted by a Committee of Inquiry composed of at least three (3) persons who are not members of the Editorial Team and who have not participated in the conduct of the preliminary evaluation process. At least one member of the Committee of Inquiry shall have no formal ties to the RJTDH —e. g. to be part of the national and international Editorial Boards and the team of manuscript reviewers.
24. All persons who have active participation in a formal investigation process shall expressly and in advance declare that there are no potential conflicts of interest that may reasonably be perceived as detrimental to the impartiality of their participation in the proceedings.
25. The completeness of the formal investigation process must be rigorous, impartial, and fair, and the accused shall be guaranteed the unrestricted right of defense. During the process, the accused must be informed and invited to speak about all evidence and other elements of conviction collected and evaluated as relevant to the conclusions of the investigation.
26. The RJTDH shall ensure that those who conduct a formal investigation process have access to all records and reports available to the research to which it is related to scientific misconduct under investigation, except those legally protected by strict confidentiality restrictions.
27. In the course of a formal investigation process, the rigor of the investigation with the right of the accused to the presumption of innocence and the preservation of its reputation must be compatible in the most balanced way.
28. Except for public health or safety reasons, any formal process of investigating scientific misconduct must proceed with the highest degree of confidentiality compatible with its rigorous and fair conduct.
28.1. In the course of the proceedings, all those who participate in it, with the exception of the accused, must maintain confidentiality regarding all information obtained by virtue of such participation.
28.2. Reports and records concerning the process may only be informed to the Editor-in-Chief and, depending on the content of the conclusive editorial decision, to the directors of the research and promotion institutions to which the accused are linked.
28.3. Disclosure of the identities of the persons involved in the process shall be made exclusively to those who need it, in view of the fair and rigorous conduct of the investigation.
29. All procedures of a formal investigation process, as well as all evidence and other elements of conviction collected and assessed, must be recorded and such records must be kept by the RJTDH for a period of no less than five (5) years.
30. At the end of the formal investigation process, the Committee of Inquiry shall, in a detailed final report, set out the conclusions obtained and justify them on the basis of the evidence and other elements of conviction examined. Such a report shall be forwarded to the accused of commentary within a period of no more than thirty (30) days if he or she deems it appropriate.
30.1. After the deadline for comments by the accused, the formal investigation process is closed and its final report, accompanied by those comments, shall be forwarded to the Editor-in-Chief.
Editorial Decision
31. In the case of a preliminary conclusive evaluation report of the lack of practice of scientific misconduct or the mediated solution for the divergence, its approval by the RJTDH should be made explicit in an unappealable editorial decision issued by the Editor-in-Chief, whose knowledge of the accused shall be made possible upon notification.
32. In the event of a final report of the formal investigation process, based on its content and on the comments of the accused about it, or even on the possible express confession of the accused, formalized at the preliminary evaluation stage or during the formal process, the Editor-in-Chief of will issue a detailed and justified editorial decision, which should contain his/her conclusions regarding the proof or not of the practice of investigated scientific misconduct.
33. An editorial decision recognizing scientific misconduct shall include punitive and/or corrective measures appropriate in the context of the actions and responsibilities of the RJTDH, in relation to the scientific damage caused by the misconduct and as a result of its recognition.
34. The punitive measures that can be imposed, alone or cumulatively, by the RJTDH on authors of scientific misconduct are:
34.1. letter of rebuke sent to the authors and the research and funding institutions to which they are linked;
34.2. suspension (temporary) or (definitive) impediment of submission of manuscripts to RJTDH;
34.3. suspension (temporary) or (definitive) impediment of maintaining any administrative or academic link with the RJTDH, reaching, for example, the occupation of the functions of editorial advisor and evaluator of manuscripts.
35. Corrective measures in relation to scientific damage caused by the misconduct, which can be taken, alone or cumulatively, by the RJTDH are:
35.1. requirement to correct the records and reports of research related to the misconduct, to be properly publicized;
35.2. notification of potentially affected persons or institutions, including the research and development institutions to which the accused are bound.
36. The severity of punitive and corrective measures that are taken by the RJTDH as a result of the recognition of the scientific misconduct assessed shall be proportional to the severity of the proven practice.
37. Ordinarily, the issuance of the editorial decision must take place within a period of no more than 60 (sixty) days, counted from the end of the formal investigation process.
38. The content of the editorial decision shall be notified to the accused, the author of the communication of scientific misconduct, the preliminary evaluators, and the members of the Committee of Inquiry.
39. The editorial decision can be appealed by the author of the report of scientific misconduct or by the accused, to be made within a preclusive period of ten (10) days, from the date of receipt of the notification of the editorial decision by the applicant.
40. Any appeal to the editorial decision will be assessed by the Editor-in-Chief, after prior manifestation of the Committee of Inquiry.
41. Ordinarily, the issuance of the editorial decision on the appeal must occur within a period of no more than 60 (sixty) days, counted from the receipt of the appeal by the Editor-in-Chief. The editorial decision on the appeal will be final and irrepressible.
PART III - RETRACTION
42. The retraction is a public instrument designed to alert readers about problems in a published manuscript (Partial Retraction) or to communicate its cancellation (Total Retraction) and is an integral part of the scientific communication system.
43. Retraction is the mechanism adopted to correct published articles and alert readers to manuscripts whose content presents misguided or flawed data, resulting in unreliable findings and conclusions.
44. The main objective of the retraction is not to punish the authors, but to correct the manuscript and ensure its integrity.
45. Retractions can also be produced to alert readers about cases of redundant publication, scientific misconduct, manipulation in peer review, reuse of material or data without prior authorization, copyright infringement, or any other legal or ethical-scientific issue.
46. The facts or reasons that may justify a retraction can be identified by the Editorial Team but must be reported to it by authors, reviewers, and readers, as soon as they see them, thus enabling appropriate and immediate measures.
47. The Editor-in-Chief shall consider retracting a publication in the hypothesis of:
47.1. Clear evidence that the manuscript's findings are unreliable, either as a result of a serious error or scientific misconduct, especially falsification, fabrication, or plagiarism;
47.2. Previous publication of the results in other vehicles of dissemination, without due attribution to the sources, without communication to the Editorial Team, without permission for republication (when required by the primary source), or without sufficient and adequate justification;
47.3. Manuscript with material or data without prior authorization for use, when legal or ethically enforceable;
47.4. Copyright infringement or any other serious legal problem related to third parties (g. slander and affront to privacy);
47.5. Report of unethical research;
47.6. Ethical commitment or manipulation of the peer review process;
47.7. Non-prior communication by the author to the Editorial Team of the existence of a competing interest (conflict of interest) that, in the opinion of the Editor-In-Chief, and considering the editorial policy and this Code of Editorial Ethics of the RJTDH, would have unduly affected the interpretations of the work or the recommendations of editors and peer reviewers.
48. The retractions published by the RJTDH must comply with the following guidelines:
48.1. Clear demonstration of linkage to the retracted manuscript, in all published versions and in the publication languages;
48.2. Unequivocal identification of the document as a retraction, avoiding confusion with other types of correction or comment;
48.3. Accurate identification of the retracted manuscript, including title and authors in the title of the retraction document, as well as the journal's public (journal name; year; volume; paging or electronic identifier); DOI number; section of the document (retraction or partial retraction); full citation of the document that will be retracted; name of the Editor-In-Chief or the Editorial Team responsible for the publication of the retraction; e-mail address; type of information adopted by the RJTDH;
48.4. Clear, factual, and objective indication of the reasons for the retraction, avoiding aggressive or offensive language;
48.5. No deletion of the retracted article from the site where it was originally published;
48.6. In the case of total retraction, the addition of a cross-sectional watermark on all its pages with the term "Retracted Article", as well as the page(s) of the retraction document, which must be allocated immediately before the first page of the retracted manuscript;
48.7. In the case of partial retraction, the addition of a black stripe covering the excerpt with the retracted data or information, identified with the term "Retracted Text", as well as the page(s) of the retraction document, which must be allocated immediately before the first page of the retracted manuscript;
48.8. Publication as promptly as possible, from the acknowledgment of the Editorial Team of the reasons for the retraction, aiming to minimize the harmful effects of the retracted content;
48.9. Free and gratuitous access to all readers;
48.10. Use of the same layout of manuscripts ordinarily published by RJTDH.
49. The manuscript will not be retracted:
49.1. when there is no reason to doubt the validity of its conclusions, even in the event of copyright dispute;
49.2. if the main conclusions are still reliable and a mere correction can sufficiently address errors or concerns;
49.3. if the Editorial Team does not have conclusive evidence to substantiate the retraction or, in case of waiting for additional information external to the RJTDH, such as those arising from an ongoing investigation in the context of another institution;
49.4. If the reporting of conflicts of interest, carried out by the authors after publication, does not affect, at the discretion of the Editor-in-Chief of the RJTDH, the interpretations, recommendations, or conclusions of the writing.
PART IV - COMMUNICATION OF THE ACTS OF INVESTIGATION
50, All communication regarding the investigation of reports of scientific misconduct or retraction will be made through e-mail messages, forwarded to the editorial@revistatdh.org or from this e-mail address to the one registered on the RJTDH platform or informed by the parties involved - especially complainants, defendants, preliminary evaluators and members of the Committee of Inquiry.
50.1. Exceptionally and in a reasoned manner, the Editor-in-Chief may make use of other media outlets and authorize both Preliminary Evaluators and members of the assessment committees, in the event that the use of the e-mail is ineffective or inappropriate, applicable in the specific case.
51. The accepted language for communication between RJTDH, Preliminary Evaluators, members of the investigation committees, and parties involved is Portuguese, and Spanish and English can be adopted if any of the parties communicate only in one of these languages.
52. For the purpose of counting the deadlines established in the preliminary evaluation procedures and formal investigation process, communications from the e-mail address of the RJTDH and addressed to the parties involved shall be deemed received and read by them on the first business day following the date of submission.
PART V - UNFORESEEN SITUATIONS
53. At the time when verified, situations and circumstances not foreseen in this Code will be subject to timely deliberation by the Editorial Team, whose members commit to doing so in a reasoned manner and in accordance with the guidelines related to ethics, due process and the duty to information to interested parties and, eventually, to the general public.
References
COMMITTEE ON PUBLICATION ETHICS (COPE). The COPE Report 1999. Guidelines on good publication practice, Family Practice, Volume 17, Issue 3, June 2000, Pages 218–221. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/fampra/17.3.218. Access: 16 Mar. 2022.
COMMITTEE ON PUBLICATION ETHICS (COPE). Ethics toolkit for a successful editorial office: a COPE guide. United Kingdom: COPE, 2022. DOI: https://doi.org/10.24318/AkFpEBd1. Access: 16 Mar. 2022.
COMMITTEE ON PUBLICATION ETHICS (COPE). Discussion document: authorship. United Kingdom: COPE, 2019. DOI: https://doi.org/10.24318/cope.2019.3.3. Access: 16 Mar. 2022.
COMMITTEE ON PUBLICATION ETHICS (COPE). Guidelines: Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers. United Kingdom: COPE, 2017. DOI: https://doi.org/10.24318/cope.2019.1.9. Access: 16 Mar. 2022.
COMMITTEE ON PUBLICATION ETHICS (COPE). Guidelines: Retraction Guidelines. United Kingdom: COPE, 2019. Available in: https://publicationethics.org/node/19896. Access: 16 Mar. 2022.
ELSEVIER. Legal guide for editors concerning ethics issues. Available in: https://www.elsevier.com/editors/perk/legal-guide-for-editors. Access: 16 Mar. 2022.
FAPESP. Code of Good Scientific Practice. São Paulo: FAPESP, 2014. Available in: https://fapesp.br/boaspraticas/2014/FAPESP-Codigo_de_Boas_Praticas_Cientificas.pdf. Access: 16 Mar. 2022.
Scielo. Guide to good practices for strengthening ethics in scientific publication [online]. S.L.: SciELO, 2018. Available in: http://old.scielo.org/local/File/Guia%20de%20Boas%20Praticas%20para%20o%20Fortalecimento%20da%20Etica%20na%20Publicacao%20Cientifica.pdf. Access: 16 Mar. 2022.
Scielo. Guide to the registration and publication of retraction [online]. S.L.: SciELO, 2019. Available in: https://wp.scielo.org/wp-content/uploads/guia_retratacao.pdf. Access: 16 Mar. 2022.
COMMITTEE ON PUBLICATION ETHICS (COPE). The COPE Report 1999. Guidelines on good publication practice, Family Practice, Volume 17, Issue 3, June 2000, Pages 218–221. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/fampra/17.3.218. Acesso em: 16 mar. 2022.
COMMITTEE ON PUBLICATION ETHICS (COPE). Ethics toolkit for a successful editorial office: a COPE guide. United Kingdom: COPE, 2022. DOI: https://doi.org/10.24318/AkFpEBd1. Acesso em: 16 mar. 2022.
COMMITTEE ON PUBLICATION ETHICS (COPE). Discussion document: authorship. United Kingdom: COPE, 2019. DOI: https://doi.org/10.24318/cope.2019.3.3. Acesso em: 16 mar. 2022.
COMMITTEE ON PUBLICATION ETHICS (COPE). Guidelines: Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers. United Kingdom: COPE, 2017. DOI: https://doi.org/10.24318/cope.2019.1.9. Acesso em: 16 mar. 2022.
COMMITTEE ON PUBLICATION ETHICS (COPE). Guidelines: Retraction Guidelines. United Kingdom: COPE, 2019. Disponível em: https://publicationethics.org/node/19896. Acesso em: 16 mar. 2022.
ELSEVIER. Legal guide for editors concerning ethics issues. Disponível em: https://www.elsevier.com/editors/perk/legal-guide-for-editors. Acesso em: 16 mar. 2022.
FAPESP. Código de Boas Práticas Científicas. São Paulo: FAPESP, 2014. Disponível em: https://fapesp.br/boaspraticas/2014/FAPESP-Codigo_de_Boas_Praticas_Cientificas.pdf. Acesso em: 16 mar. 2022.
SCIELO. Guia de boas práticas para o fortalecimento da ética na publicação científica [online]. S.L: SciELO, 2018. Disponível em: http://old.scielo.org/local/File/Guia%20de%20Boas%20Praticas%20para%20o%20Fortalecimento%20da%20Etica%20na%20Publicacao%20Cientifica.pdf. Acesso em: 16 mar. 2022.
SCIELO. Guia para o registro e publicação de retratação [online]. S.L: SciELO, 2019. Disponível em: https://wp.scielo.org/wp-content/uploads/guia_retratacao.pdf. Acesso em: 16 mar. 2022.
