Codice etico

REMHU CODE OF ETHICS AND STANDARDS FOR MALPRACTICE STATEMENT

 

INTRODUCTION

REMHU, Interdisciplinary Journal of Human Mobility, aware of its academic and social responsibility as a scientific journal, affirms its commitment to ethics and the quality of its publications, from submission to publication of texts, according to the principles contained in the Codes of Ethics of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) (http://www.publicationethics.org/) and of the National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (http://www.cnpq.br/web/guest/diretrizes).

 

1. RESPONSIBILITY FOR PUBLICATION

1.1 RESPONSABILITIES OF THE EDITOR

a) Ethical responsibility

REMHU adopts the COPE Code of Conduct for Journal Editors as minimum standards for publication procedures. It is the responsibility of the REMHU Editor:

1. Maintain the integrity of the academic record;
2. Adopt processes to ensure the quality of the material that REMHU publishes, promoting even, fair, impartial and timely peer review and requiring the Editorial Board to objectively and impartially evaluate;
3. Strive to meet the needs of authors and readers;
4. Prevent party interests from compromising the journal's intellectual and ethical standards;
5. Obey confidentiality laws in your own jurisdiction;
6. Publish corrections, clarifications, retractions and apologies whenever necessary, including supporting authors whose copyright has been violated or who have been victims of plagiarism;
7. Adopt plagiarism detection systems.

 

b) Conducting the editorial process and publishing decisions

Maintain interactive communication with authors, referees, the scientific community, readers and society in general on topics related to the publication. Coordinate the collaboration of the Scientific Council and the Editorial Committee in the editing processes of REMHU volumes and in the definition of policies and strategic choices for the Journal.

Perform an initial analysis of the submitted articles, to verify the adequacy to the scope and editorial criteria of REMHU and conduct the editorial process in all its stages. Ensure double-blind peer review of all articles accepted for analysis of REMHU's editorial process. Make the final decision on the submitted articles and return to the authors within 150 days.

Define the editorial content to be published and the themes of the REMHU editions, listening to the opinion of the Editorial Councilors. Make effective and objective decisions regarding the composition of the journal and editorial policies. Entrust any dossiers to external organizers, with whom you will share the task and responsibility for the first evaluation of the submitted manuscripts.

Evaluate the manuscripts exclusively on the basis of their academic merit by the relevance of the theme, the quality of the scientific methodology, the originality and consistency of the results, the coherence of the conclusions, and adequacy to the editorial guidelines of the journal.

The Chief Editor is responsible for ensuring regular publication of REMHU volumes and periodically reviewing editorial policies to encourage responsible behavior by authors and reviewers and to discourage malpractice in publications.

 

c) Conflicts of interest and malpractice in publishing

Take appropriate action whenever conflicts of interest recognized by reviewers exclude them from any blind review process.

Evaluate jointly with the Editorial Committee the manuscripts in which there are conflicts of interest due to competitive, collaborative or other relationships or links with authors or institutions linked to the texts presented, exempting himself from the final decision on such manuscripts. Formally refuse to participate in the evaluation process of own articles submitted to REMHU.

It is up to the Editor to submit to anonymous and objective evaluation submissions by members of the Editorial Committee and the Scientific Council and to exclude from submission any articles previously published by the same author or texts that contain plagiarism, self-plagiarism or redundancy with articles already published.

 

d) Confidentiality, impartiality and data retention

Ensure the confidentiality of authorship and blind peer review and require the referees to sign the term of confidentiality and impartiality as a condition for joining the REMHU Peer Review team.

Evaluate the submitted manuscripts without discriminating authors or reviewers by race, sex, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, nationality, institutional affiliation or any reason other than strictly academic arguments. Decisions to accept or not an article are never determined by government policies or any other authority, except for the criteria and rules of the Journal itself.

REMHU reserves the right and the duty to maintain its internationalization policy by accepting texts that, on the basis of equal quality conditions, ensure the diversity of the journal's languages, interdisciplinarity and its international scope.

Editor and Members of the Editorial Committee and the Scientific Council undertake not to use, in their own research and publications, the content of articles submitted for REMHU's editorial evaluation, before its publication and never without due copyright citation.

Ensure the correct and safe protection of data of people and institutions collected intrinsically to the editorial process and kept in the CSEM. Ensure the anonymity of the reviewers of the texts submitted to the Journal.

 

e) Standard

The Editor is obliged to respect editorial policies and strategies, and is called upon to improve them periodically, in collaboration with the Maintainer and with the contribution of the members of the Scientific Council and the Editorial Committee. Editor and other actors in the editorial process are subject to the REMHU Norms and the current legislation on violation of good editorial practices, copyright and professional ethics.

It is the responsibility of the Editor to avoid overloading texts to the referees, volunteers in their functions, and to ensure that the peer review responds to the profile of subjects and disciplines within the competence of the professionals, in sending appropriate texts to each referee.

The Editor can request additional opinions to new referees in case of need to guarantee impartiality and quality of the publication. The Editor must supervise all and any type of scientific malpractice related to the edited journal and take the appropriate measures in accordance with the REMHU Norms for malpractice in the publication.

Regularly review the composition of the Scientific Committee and the Editorial Committee. Guide and inform the members of the Editorial Committee and the Scientific Council about their functions and ensure an adequate selection of reviewers. Periodically consult the members of the Scientific Committee to evaluate their opinions on the progress of the Journal, informing them of any changes in editorial policies and seeking collaboration in the identification of future challenges and the respective actions to be taken.

        

1.2 AUTHORS 'RESPONSIBILITIES

a) Uniqueness and originality

Submit original and unpublished texts, without plagiarism and duplication. The texts published in full or in part on the internet are not considered unpublished; parts of theses and dissertations; texts already published in another language; texts published in annals of scientific events. 

Texts that, although previously published in annals of scientific events, are substantially improved as a result of later debates and studies are considered unpublished. In this case, the Editor must be informed at the time of submission in "Comments to the Editor", leaving the "Editorial Committee" to decide on the acceptance of the article.

It is allowed to send a previously published manuscript on a Preprint Platform (preprints.scielo.org, SocArXiv, and SSRN), provided they have not been submitted to peer review in another journal simultaneously. In this case, the author will need to communicate it to the editors at the time of submission, complete and attach the Open Science Compliance SciELO-Preprints form with the files submitted for evaluation and must inform their online location (link, DOI etc.). The manuscript published as preprint is also submitted for peer review.

 

b) Multiple and redundant publications

Do not submit the same manuscript at the same time to more than one journal, or use too much self-citation.

 

c) Sources

Always provide the sources of direct and indirect citations and material that had a decisive influence on the preparation of the article or research that gave rise to the text, , as well as program codes and other underlying materials.

Make sure that the sources are properly used and that due credit is given to the consulted bibliography, with adequate and complete indication.

 

d) Authorship

Ensure that all persons who have made a significant contribution to the preparation of the manuscript are included, as authors and co-authors, and have approved the final version of the publication. People who did not work directly in the production of the text, but who were involved in some aspect of the research or in the elaboration of some specific element such as map or statistical data, should be mentioned as collaborators in a footnote and cannot be mentioned as authors.

Check the existence of copyright of the images that may be used in the text, identifying, whenever used, their authorship and sources.

The authors are responsible for the content exposed in the material submitted to REMHU. When submitting an article to REMHU, people agree that once accepted for publication, all rights, without time limits and modalities of disclosure, belong to REMHU.

 

e) Grant

Present, if any, the sources of financial support for the research project or article.

 

f) Erros

When perceiving the presence of errors or inaccuracies in their work, before or after publication, authors are asked to immediately inform the editor of the journal and provide all the necessary information for the correction or retraction to be carried out, according to Journal Norms and according to any errors found.

In cases of suspected errors or malpractice, Referees may suggest and Chief Editor may require proof of direct sources regarding data or interpretations that are part of the article submitted to REMHU.

 

g) Frequency

Upon receiving acceptance of an article, people assume they are aware that REMHU publishes articles of the same authorship only every three editions (one year).

 

h) Conflicts

Recognize, in fact, that when carrying out the process of submitting articles to REMHU, there are no conflicts of interest that may have conditioned the results or interpretations proposed in the texts, or other conflicts of interest that may ingest the quality and compromise the accuracy of the publication .

 

i) Selection process

Accept REMHU's modalities of carrying out selection of texts for publication and collaborate in the peer review evaluation process.

Manuscripts are selected for publication based on: the relevance of the theme, the quality of the scientific methodology, the originality and consistency of the results, the coherence of the conclusions, the pertinence, relevance and timeliness of the bibliography, and adequacy to the editorial guidelines of the journal.

In its policy of selecting articles, reports and reviews to be published, the Chief Editor evaluates, in addition to the quality of the manuscript and opinions of the referees, also the international and interdisciplinary profile of the Journal, in addition to the amount of text received, significantly higher than the number of texts that REMHU can publish. Very good articles can be rejected without this representing a negative assessment of production.

Although it is not obliged to inform the reasons for the rejection of a text, REMHU usually returns evaluative comments to the authors that can help in the improvement of the manuscript.

In cases of co-authorship, the person responsible for communicating with REMHU must ensure that all co-authors follow the editorial process and approve the final version of the text.

 

1.3 REVIEWER RESPONSIBILITIES

a) Evaluation

Ensure confidentiality, objectivity, scientific rigor and neutrality of its evaluation, guaranteeing and carrying out blind peer evaluation. Express your own opinions in a transparent way and with the support of clear, argued and possibly indicated statements in examples with quotes from the evaluated text.

Contribute to the effective improvement of the article, with critical and constructive opinions. Peer review helps editors make editorial decisions and, through editorial communications with authors, can help authors improve their manuscripts.

Issue opinions that include attention to the originality of the submitted texts and alert to possible redundant and plagiarism elements in the evaluated articles, with the obligation to formally signal to the Editor any sign of malpractice.

 

b) Conflicts of interest

Exercise the function of unpaid referee, aware of the importance of your collaboration with the journal and science, rejecting invitations for evaluation when you are not comfortable evaluating an article due to the thematic distance from the text of your areas of knowledge.

Reject invitations for evaluation in cases of conflicts of interest that may occur when evaluating an article, whether academic, financial, personal or political, informing the Editor, even after accepting the invitation for evaluation.

In the case of articles already published on preprint platforms, the referee should inform the journal if the identification of the author implies some kind of conflict of interest that compromises the impartial evaluation of the manuscript.

 

c) Ethics and confidentiality

Do not make any use of the content of the articles evaluated, except for a reading strictly referring to the evaluation. Eventual citation of ideas and information in the productions themselves is admitted after publication and with due and rigorous information from the source.

Conduct constructive criticism focused, specifically, on the text and content of articles, without taking advantage, under any circumstances, of the function of the evaluator. REMHU does not admit criticism or offensive language towards the authors.

Do not induce, in their respective opinions, the authors to cite texts authored by the evaluating reviewers, nor adopt in the evaluation to be issued a personal position on contents that signal a political option or methodological or theoretical orientation different from their own, emphasizing academic rigor and respect human rights and the dignity of the subjects involved.

 

d) Rigor and transparency

Always send the result of the evaluation to the Chief Editor within the stipulated period, avoiding harming authors and REMHU itself with delays.

Inform and indicate cases of suspected academic malpractice, always guaranteeing the confidentiality of the text received for evaluation.

Communicate to the Editor in a timely manner whenever he realizes any substantial similarity of ideas or texts in the article with other publications of which he is aware, whether from the same as that of other authors.

The Editor and authors are not obliged to accept suggestions for corrections by referees.

 

1.4 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN EDITOR AND MAINTAINER

Responsibility for the editorial process and decisions related to publication rests with the Chief Editor, in charge of the Maintainer as Director of REMHU. The Editor is responsible for keeping the Maintainer informed about the institutional duties to be fulfilled and the feasibility conditions to maintain and improve the quality and reach of REMHU publications. The Chief Editor maintains regular communication with the institutional director of the Maintainer.

As Maintainer of REMHU, CSEM provides practical support to the Editor, the Scientific Council and the Editorial Committee to ensure the continuity and quality of the Journal. The Editor may request the support of the Maintainer to manage cases of malpractice in publications, if necessary.

The Maintainer must assure the Editor of the autonomy of editorial decisions and protect the intellectual property and copyright held by REMHU. At the same time, the Maintainer supervises the Editor so that the Code of Ethics and the Standards of Conduct are respected and the quality of the Journal is guaranteed.

The Editor is responsible for coordinating the Members of the Editorial Committee and the Institution responsible for REMHU, as well as interacting with the institutional responsible for the Maintainer to ensure that good editorial practices and the rules for the composition of the Editorial Committee are observed.

The Chief Editor and the Maintainer work together to ensure the human and financial resources and the necessary means for the preventive and corrective maintenance of digital tools and physical infrastructure for the maintenance and due development of REMHU.

 

1.5 RESPONSIBILITIES FOR SOCIAL COMMUNICATION

It is the responsibility of the Editor, with support from the Maintainer, to ensure timely access to the content published in REMHU, thus promoting the dissemination of science and knowledge.

It is the responsibility of the Scientific Committee and the Referees to collaborate with the Maintainer and the Editor so that the reach of the REMHU publications reach the largest and most varied public possible for readers, thus valuing the efforts of authors and researchers in the production and dissemination of knowledge, in the spirit of open science open to all.

The Scientific Committee and the Editorial Committee are called to support and promote the journal and, eventually, actively encourage submissions.

Authors are asked to collaborate in the dissemination of REMHU volumes, especially through the dissemination of the printed and electronic versions of the Periodical, always citing the final versions in the official formats of the Journal.

The Maintainer is responsible for providing conditions, investment and logistical and institutional support so that the conditions of viability and development of REMHU are maintained and optimized and its coverage is ensured in the dissemination of knowledge in order to achieve its objectives.

The Chief Editor must respond to any complaints and complaints sent to REMHU and facilitate the access of any complainants dissatisfied with their responses to the higher authority.

 

2.IDENTIFICATION OF MALPRACTICE AND GUIDELINES FOR ACTION

2.1 DESCRIPTION OF MALPRACTICE IN PUBLICATION

REMHU follows, as far as possible, the guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) for situations of ethical malpractice. The following occurrences are considered as malpractice, among others:

1. Publication in duplicate or redundant (similarity), even in different languages;
2. Data manufacturing;
3. Changes in authorship (inclusion / exclusion) and suspected authorship ("ghost", "guest" or "gift");
4. Conflicts of interest not declared by the authors or reviewers;
5. Ethical problem in an article submitted for publication;
6. Inappropriate use of information by editors, advisers or reviewers;
7. Plagiarism and self-plagiarism;
8. Breach of confidentiality or use of data and ideas from peer-reviewed manuscripts;
9. Use of images and data without acknowledgment of credits to the respective authors.

 

In order to consider the need for retracting errors, REMHU verifies whether:

1. There is clear evidence that the results of any research reported in the submitted article are not reliable (for example, data manufacture) or whether an honest error (for example, miscalculation or experimental error) may have occurred;
2. The results were previously published elsewhere, without references, permission or cross-justification (for example, cases of redundant publication);
3. it constitutes plagiarism; or if
4. Reports unethical research.

Plagiarism means the action by which an individual copies parts or totally of another person's work without due credit to the original author, even when performed with the author's consent. Plagiarism is also signing or representing someone else's scientific work or part of it; it is a fraudulent imitation of a work protected by copyright law.

“Plagiarizing means committing literary theft, presenting someone else's idea or work, literary or scientific, as your own”  (http://www.plagio.tccmonografiaseartigos.com.br/o-que-e-plagio).

Other forms of malpractice in publications, considered as criminal practices whose reporting requires investigation by the REMHU Editor, are:

1. self-plagiarism (when the person uses studies and ideas already published in other texts, without citing them);
2. mosaic of plagiarism (when the person copies excerpts from different sources, forming a mosaic and changing small phrases or words to disguise the copy);
3. conceptual plagiarism (when the author's idea is used by writing in another way, but again, without mention the original source); paraphrase without attributing source;
4. use of images, data and other visual content used without citing the source;
5. invention of non-existent sources and
6. fraudulent handling of data from direct or indirect sources, among others.

 

2.2 REPORTS RELATING TO MALPRACTICE IN PUBLICATIONS

Every reported act of unethical publication behavior will be analyzed, even if it is discovered years after publication.

The communication to the Chief Editor of any suspicion of malpractice in articles or in the use of images in REMHU can be done through any written means, privileging electronic communication accompanied by images / attachments that document the suspicions.

REMHU establishes an immediate search for possible honest errors or seeks to investigate suspicions of malpractice in publications, even if it receives an anonymous report, on condition that it finds clarity and consistency in any reported cases.

 

2.3 CORRECTIVE MEASURES

Faced with suspicions of malpractice in publications, whether in relation to texts or images, it is up to the Chief Editor to adopt reasonable measures in a timely manner. The Editor cannot simply reject articles that raise concerns about possible malpractice; it is ethically obliged to investigate reported cases, starting by demanding a response from those directly interested.

In the event of complaints and information about suspected malpractice or disputed authorship about an article submitted or published, REMHU follows, as far as possible, the guidelines of the COPE flowcharts (cf. https://publicationethics.org/guidance).

Specifically, in cases where suspicion of any breach of the REMHU code of ethics and rules of conduct is suspected, the editors will contact the author (s) for clarification. Persisting, a commission will be established to verify the facts with the support of members of the Scientific Council. And, if confirmed, it is necessary to correct the article through errata and / or retraction, of those already published, and rejection, of those still in process.

REMHU adopts the best retraction practices systematized by the academic community. Examples of retraction procedures: https://www.elsevier.com/about/policies/article-withdrawal.

In cases of suspicion of malpractice by evaluators, REMHU follows the guidelines of the COPE flowchart, when applicable.

 

Brasília, August 2020.