Diretrizes éticas
Ethics in Publication
Ethics and good publication practices
The act of publishing involves different actors, each playing an important role in achieving these objectives. Thus, all parties involved - the author, the editor and Editorial Committee of the journal, and the reviewers - have responsibilities to maintain good ethical practices.
- Editors
Our editorial practice and the relationship between editors and authors and evaluators follow the Guidelines for editors defined by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).
All editorial decisions are grounded on originality, contribution, pertinence, thematic relevance, general structure, and compliance with editorial policies to meet the scope of the journal.
- Evaluators
Our evaluation is based on the research merit and is not influenced, either positively or negatively, by any personal or financial
The editorial process of Revista P2P & INOVAÇÃO - Informação e Plataformas Digitais (P2P & I2PD) provides a double-blind peer review evaluation. All submissions and details of the reviews are kept under confidentiality.
The evaluator must ensure and inform the editors of any potential conflict of interest before accepting the evaluation or throughout the process.
Upon detecting any irregularities in the evaluated article, the evaluator must inform the editor. Examples of potential irregularities are the identification of plagiarism, manipulation and/or falsification of results, and redundant publication.
- Authors
The authorship of a scientific article must be indicated following the Guidelines for authors by the COPE (English).
The author(es) must declare the existence of a conflict of interests by filling in the proper field available on the Work Notes template that will be sent as a supplementary document, in addition to the corresponding field in the system when submitting the manuscript.
Retraction and expression of concern
The editor must act upon identifying any suspicion or allegation of misconduct. The investigation will cover both submissions and published articles.
They are used as an instrument the COPE flowcharts instrument to ascertain facts and determine actions required for the resolution of cases.
Conflicts of Interest
Conflicts of interest can be personal, commercial, policy, academic, or financial and emerge when authors, reviewers, or editors have interests that might influence the elaboration or evaluation of manuscripts. Upon submitting the manuscript, the authors are responsible for acknowledging and disclosing any financial conflicts or any other nature that might have influenced the research. Upon any conflict of interest, although potential, the author(s) must inform through a specific document signed and annexed to the submission platform.
In the art of evaluating a manuscript, involving authors and reviewers, the establishment of a policy to avoid the involvement of people in personal relationships, friendship or adversity, as well as involving people and institutions.
This procedure aims at the reliability of the analysis process of the submitted material, thus enhancing the credibility of the published articles. Thereby, we instruct the authors and reviewers to contact the Editorial Council of the Journal in cases of a) personal or institutional bonds and conflicts (of a family or partisan nature) between reviewers and authors and b) any financial support for the research development that might jeopardize the reliability of the produced material.
Peer review
The editorial process of P2P & I2PD adopts the double-blind peer review.
All originals are pre-evaluated by the editors considering their originality, contribution, pertinence, thematic validity, general structure, and compliance with editorial policies. If these criteria are not met, the authors will be informed within 15 days of the rejection and termination of the article.
Upon a positive evaluation, the approved manuscript will be referred to two external referees who will be responsible for the analysis, approval (with or without changes), or rejection of the manuscript within 30 days. If needed, the editors might request the participation of other evaluators. The editor responsible for the manuscript evaluation process will inform the author of the “Acceptance without changes,” “Acceptance with small adjustments,” “Required corrections” (and another referees’ analysis round), or “Rejection” and termination.
In the cases of “Acceptance with small adjustments” and “Required corrections” (and another round of referees’ analysis), the author will have 60 days to send the reviewed manuscript to P2P & I2PD, along with a document commenting on the changes. Substantial corrections, up to 90 days after submission. The editor responsible for the manuscript evaluation process will send the evaluators an updated version of the manuscript and the document containing the comments and/or justifications to check whether the reviewed text met the referees’ requirements, and then establish if it can be accepted, or rejected, or still requires changes.
If the final decision is to reject the manuscript, the author will be informed of the reason for the rejection and the manuscript will be terminated.
If the text requires only grammar, spelling, and normative changes for publication homogeneity, the editors are entitled to perform such changes, respecting the author’s style. In other cases, the author will redraw the text according to the requests of the journal.
The editors are entitled to reject works whose content is significantly like other works in any part of the process (plagiarism), identified by the "Plag",software of plagiarism detection.
Privacy Statement
All names and addresses informed to this journal will be used exclusively for the services rendered in the scope of this publication and cannot be provided for any other purposes or third parties, according to LAW Nº 13.709, AUGUST 14, 2018, General Data Protection LAW – LGPD, Articles 3 and 23.
