Scientific integrity

Ethical Integrity Guidelines to Authors

Editorial compliance: Scientific misconduct will be reported to the authors' research institution and to the funding agencies.

Retraction Policy: Conducts that violate integrity guidelines may lead to the later retraction (exclusion) of articles already published in RBDPP.

 

a) Co-authored publications: On publications resulted from collective research, it is necessary to specify the individual intellectual contribution and the consent of each author. The assignment of financial resources and infrastructure is not an indication of co-authorship.

"16. The inclusion of authors in the manuscript must be decided before the actual collaboration and should be based on previous established standards, such as the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors guidelines.

  1. Only relevant contributions in a manuscript must be taken into consideration to determine its authorship. Relevant contributions mean activities like: conducting experiments, participating in the experimental planning process, analyzing the results or elaborating the manuscript’s body. Responsibilities on equipment loans, financial support or general supervision do not justify authorship, but only mentions of acknowledgements.
  2. Collaboration between professors and students should follow the same criteria. Supervisors should ensure that students with little or no contribution are not included in the authorship nor should they exclude those who have actually contributed to the work. Ghost authorship in Science is ethically unacceptable." (SOURCE. CNPq. Diretrizes básicas para a integridade na atividade científica. Available in: <http://cnpq.br/diretrizes>. Accessed on: 25 may. 2018)

b) Responsibility: The author or, where applicable, each co-author is responsible for the quality of the work as a whole, unless the limits of each contribution are precisely indicated.

c) Responsibility of confidentiality: The author should explicitly indicate any confidential information that, for ethical reasons, cannot be disclosed.

d) Conflict of interests: In case of potential conflict of interest, it must be expressly and clearly indicated.

Conflict of interest may occur when the researcher's interest in advancing science conflicts with interests of a different nature. Consequently, this may undermine the objectivity and impartiality of the work conclusions.

For example, if the main ideas of the article were firstly developed in a legal opinion concerning the interest of a client, or even in a context of private legal service, the author must indicate the potential conflict to the editors.

e) Plagiarism: When an idea or wording used in the paper is not in public domain in the research area, it is presumed to be an original contribution. If this is not the case, the idea or wording should be expressly credited and referenced, under penalty of plagiarism. The following acts are considered serious scientific misconduct: "Plagiarism or the use of others’ verbal, oral or written ideas or wordings without expressly and clearly crediting them to their rightful authors, giving the impression that the ideas or wordings of the work are original" ( Código de Boas Práticas Científicas. p. 31. Available in: <http://www.fapesp.br/boaspraticas/FAPESP-Codigo_de_Boas_Praticas_Cientificas_2014.pdf>.  Accessed on: 25 mai. 2018)

f) Self-Plagiarism: When identical or substantially similar work has been published in another communication vehicle or journal, even in another language, it must be expressly indicated in the text and informed to the editor at the time of submission, otherwise it will be considered self-plagiarism.

Previously published ideas and premises (even by the author him/herself) must be specifically referenced in a footnote with precise indication of the previous publication. Identical excerpts must be cited in quotation marks, with the indication of the specific reference (including the page). The simple indication of the previous work in a footnote is insufficient, since it must be made clear that the excerpts have already been previously published.

An unpublished work, free of self-plagiarism, should be a new intellectual process, that is to say, effectively a new idea or study from the author.

In addition, if the previous work was published in co-authoring, with no specification of each individual contribution, it is necessary to credit all authors as sources in the reference, since they all have copyrights on the work in its entirely.

g) Simultaneous submission: the simultaneous submission of articles in different journals deeply undermines the editorial process and, by extend, the development of scientific knowledge as a whole, as it unduly overwhelms editors and evaluators. Simultaneous submission also increases the possibility of self-plagiarism.

(Guidelines partially inspired in the Editorial Politics of Revista Teoria Jurídica Contemporânea, periódico do PPG em Direito da UFRJ. Available in: <https://revistas.ufrj.br/index.php/rjur/about/editorialPolicies>. Accessed on: 25 mai. 2018).

 

Guidelines of the scientific editorial process and the process of verifying complaints

The Brazilian Journal of Criminal Procedure has as main objective the production of consistent scientific knowledge, based on an editorial process of control, evaluation and review of the papers guided by scientific and integrity parameters in conformity with national and international bodies and institutions related to scientific editing and publishing.

In this sense, the guidelines of the following organs are used as guides to the editorial process:

 

Complaint verification process

Complaints and suspicions of acts that violate scientific integrity guidelines will be reviewed by the RBDPP editorial team, with respect to the contradictory and decision motivation. Eventually, external experts can be contacted for recommendation.

Any person at any time may send complaints of acts that violate the scientific integrity guidelines to: revista@ibraspp.com.br

 

Possible outcomes and sanctions

The following punishments may, either alone or cumulatively, be imposed on those who are proven to be acting in violation of the editorial and scientific integrity guidelines:

  • instructive notification on the issue;
  • formal warning about conduct;
  • publication of news or editorial on the issue;
  • formal letter to the head of the author's or reviewer's department or funding agency
  • suspension or exclusion of the evaluator or editor;
  • formal retraction or withdraw of the published article;
  • embargo for new submissions for a defined period;
  • formal communication of the case to competent authorities for investigation.

 

Editors' Responsibilities and Duties of the Editorial Process

The journal editorial process is divided into functions, in which every responsibility and ethical duty is determined in the following terms (on this, see PKP Guide):

1) Publishing Team: editors are responsible for the journal's editorial process, especially for desk review, distribution to reviewers, analysis of evaluations, correction rounds and final decision.

Editors' must strictly follow integrity guidelines in an objective, balanced and fair way, being careful to avoid any kind of discrimination or any interest other than the scientific merit of the research.

Chief Editors:

The Chief Editor has the duty of leading others editors and the editorial board, and supervises the journal's publishing process, determining and upgrading its editorial policy. If necessary, the chief editor is the one responsible for answering requests for appeals of decisions or any claim or suspicion of science misconduct practices.

The Chief Editor is the journal's representative, fulfilling the role of publicizing the journal and disseminating its content.

Chief Editor may lead the publishing process concerning a particular section or manuscripct, or designate an associate editor for the role.

Associate Editors are researchers/professors responsible for the management of the journal's editorial process. They are also responsible for designing a special thematic dossier and for assisting editors in general issues, such as organization and direction of the journal. Associate editors have more experience in scientific editorial process, specially acquainted in the RBDPP policies and practices.

Assistant Editors are researchers/professors responsible for managing the editorial process of a particular section of the journal or manuscripts, always under the supervision of the chief editor or an associate editor.

2) The Editorial Board is composed of Ph.D. professors, preferably linked to post-graduation programs, with notable scientific and editorial knowledge, being responsible for guiding the journal policies, suggesting sections and thematic dossiers and dealing and solving any controversy in the publishing process. Members of the Board may indicate new evaluators, publicize the journal and disseminate its content as much as possible, and when necessary evaluate (also in blind review) submitted articles concerning his or her particular field of knowledge.

3) Evaluators: Evaluators are researchers, doctoral students or Ph.D. professors, with notable scientific contribution in the areas of criminal sciences and criminal procedure. They are responsible for evaluating manuscripts submitted to the journal, strictly following its criteria, without the authors' knowledge. Evaluators work seeks to contribute to the selection and improvement of submitted articles, in an objective, confidential, respectful and fair way. Any conflict of interest must be notified to the publishing team.

 

Citation policy and citation suggestions

The use of artificial citations to manipulate impact and control by indexing mechanisms is a conduct that characterizes scientific bad practice. On this, see the COPE Document on Citations Manipulation. Therefore, the Brazilian Journal of Criminal Procedure repudiates such conduct, so that its editors will act to avoid and verify any bad practices in these terms.

During the editorial process, based on the recommendations of the double-blind peer review and the consolidation of the evaluation by the editorial team, references will be recommended to enlarge the bibliography of an article approved under conditions. Such bibliographic suggestions will be guided by the theme of the article and its scientific aims, seeking to indicate relevant, classic and current references.

In the rounds of corrections, the authors must present a motivated answer to all comments and suggestions from the reviewers and the editorial team. However, the authors are not obliged to comply with all suggestions, so that refusals are accepted, as long as they are properly motivated.

The editorial staff may recommend the citation of articles previously published in the Brazilian Journal of Criminal Procedure, as long as they are pertinent and related to the theme addressed in the article. Such conduct does not characterize bad practice, since an original article must present an innovative contribution and consistently establish the premises already published in previous works, especially in the journal where that new article might be published.

External reviewers, in their evaluation opinions, may only recommend their own works if the evaluated article effectively addresses a related theme and there is a concrete contribution to the research.

Authors, in their articles, should only quote their own previous works if the evaluated article effectively addresses a related theme and there is a concrete contribution to the debate analyzed there. However, it is emphasized that the transcription of texts already published, without proper citation, characterizes self-plagiarism and must be rejected.