Publishing Ethics and Publishing Malpractice Statement
This journal is committed to ethics and quality in publication. We support standards of expected ethical behavior for all parties involved in publishing in our journal: the author, the journal editor, the peer reviewer and the publisher. We do not accept plagiarism or other unethical behavior.
Duties of Editors:
- Publication decision: The journal’s editor is responsible for deciding which of the articles submitted to the journal should be published. The editor is guided by the policies of the journal's editorial board and constrained by such legal requirements as shall then be in force regarding libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism. The editor may consult with editorial board or reviewers in decision making.
- Fair play: The editor should evaluate manuscripts for their intellectual content without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the authors.
- Confidentiality: The editor and any editorial staff must not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher, as appropriate.
- Disclosure and Conflicts of interest: The editor must not use unpublished information in his/her own research without the express written consent of the author. The editor should recuse him/herself from considering manuscripts in which he/she has conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or (possibly) institutions connected to the papers.
- Involvement and cooperation in investigations: The editor should take reasonable responsive measures when ethical complaints have been presented concerning a submitted manuscript or published paper.
Duties of Reviewers:
- Contribution to Editorial Decision: Peer review assists the editor in making editorial decisions and through the editorial communications with the author may also assist the author in improving the paper.
- Promptness: Any selected referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the editor and excuse himself from the review process.
- Confidentiality: Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be shown to or discussed with others.
- Standards of Objectivity: Reviews should be conducted objectively and referees should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.
- Acknowledgement of Source: Peer reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. The peer reviewer should also call to the editor's attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge.
- Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest: Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.
Duties of Authors:
- Reporting standards: Authors of reports of original research should present an accurate account of the work performed as well as an objective discussion of its significance. Underlying data should be represented accurately in the paper. A paper should contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable..
- Originality and Plagiarism: The authors should ensure that they have written entirely original works, and if the authors have used the work and/or words of others that this has been appropriately cited or quoted. Plagiarism in all its forms constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable.
- Multiple, Redundant or Concurrent Publication: An author should not in general publish manuscripts describing essentially the same research in more than one journal or primary publication. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently and/or publish the same article in different journals constitute unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable.
- Acknowledgement of Sources: Proper acknowledgment of the work of others must always be given. Authors should cite publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work. Information obtained privately, as in conversation, correspondence, or discussion with third parties, must not be used or reported without explicit, written permission from the source. Information obtained in the course of confidential services, such as refereeing manuscripts or grant applications, must not be used without the explicit written permission of the author of the work involved in these services.
- Authorship of the Paper: Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the reported study. All those who have made significant contributions should be listed as co-authors. Where there are others who have participated in certain substantive aspects of the research project, they should be acknowledged or listed as contributors. The corresponding author should ensure that all appropriate co-authors and no inappropriate co-authors are included on the paper, and that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the paper and have agreed to its submission for publication.
- Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest: All authors should disclose in their manuscript any financial or other substantive conflict of interest that might be construed to influence the results or interpretation of their manuscript. All sources of financial support for the project should be disclosed.
- Fundamental errors in published works: When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in his/her own published work, it is the author’s obligation to promptly notify the journal editor or publisher and cooperate with the editor to retract or correct the paper.
Duties of the Publisher
- We are committed to ensuring that advertising, reprint or other commercial revenue has no impact or influence on editorial decisions.
- Our articles are peer reviewed to ensure the quality of scientific publishing and we are also users of CrossCheck (CrossRef’s plagiarism software).
Researches related to humans and animals must be accompanied by a copy of the approval of the ethics committee.
Below we list the main guidelines of international and national organizations that serve as references for principles and good practices on ethics observed by the Unisinos Journal of Philosophy:
1- “Principles of Transparency and Good Practice in Academic Publications” recommended by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE): www.publicationethics.org
2- CSE’s White Paper on Promoting Integrity in Scientific Journal Publications [COUNCIL OF SCIENCE EDITORS: https://www.councilscienceeditors.org/resource-library/editorial-policies/white-paper-on-publication-ethics/; ABEC BRASIL. Diretrizes do CSE para promover integridade em publicações de periódicos científicos, 2012: https://www.abecbrasil.org.br/arquivos/whitepaper_CSE.pdf
3- INTERNATIONAL COMMITTEE OF MEDICAL JOURNAL EDITORS (ICMJE). Recommendations for the conduct, reporting, editing, and publication of scholarly work in medical journals: http://www.icmje.org/icmje-recommendations.pdf.
4- Equator Network: www.equator-network.org
5- THE OFFICE OF RESEARCH INTEGRITY. Definition of research misconduct: https://ori.hhs.gov/definition-misconduct.
6- Hong Kong Principles for assessing researchers - MOHER, D. et al. The Hong Kong Principles for assessing researchers: Fostering research integrity. Plos Biology., [s. l.], v. 18, n. 7, p. e3000737, July 16, 2020.
7- DECLARATION ON RESEARCH ASSESSMENT (DORA). San Francisco: https://sfdora.org/read/.
8- FAPESP. Code of good scientific practice: https://fapesp.br/boaspraticas/FAPESP-Code_of_Good_Scientific_Practice_2014.pdf]
9- Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq). Relatório da Comissão de Integridade de Pesquisa do CNPq: http://www.cnpq.br/web/guest/diretrizes]
10- SciELO. Guide to promoting the opening, transparency, and reproducibility of research published by SciELO journals: https://wp.scielo.org/wp-content/uploads/Guia_TOP_en.pdf
11- Guia de Boas Práticas para o Fortalecimento da Ética na Publicação Cientifica: https://wp.scielo.org/wp-content/uploads/Guia-de-Boas-Praticas-para-o-Fortalecimento-da-Etica-na-Publicacao-Cientifica.pdf;
* This statement is based on Elsevier recommendations and COPE's Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors.