PUBLICATION ETHICS AND PUBLICATION MALPRACTICE STATEMENT
1. Duties of authors
1.1 Reporting standards
1.1.1 Authors of reports of original research should present an accurate account of the work performed as well as an objective and critical discussion of its significance. Underlying data should be represented accurately in the paper. The paper should contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work.
1.1.2 Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable by Revista de Estudos Criminais.
1.2 Data access and retention
1.2.1 Authors may be asked to provide the primary sources in connection with the paper for evaluation and editorial review. They should also be prepared to retain such data for a reasonable time after publication.
1.3 Originality and plagiarism
1.3.1 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.
1.3.2 Plagiarism takes many forms, from "passing off" another's paper as the author's own paper, to copying or paraphrasing substantial parts of another's paper (without attribution), to claiming results from research conducted by others. Plagiarism in all its forms constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is not accepted by Revista de Estudos Criminais.
1.4 Multiple, redundant or concurrent publication
1.4.1 Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently should be avoided, being only accepted under certain conditions by Revista de Estudos Criminais.
1.4.2 There is nothing to prevent that, after approval for publication in a journal, if previously authorized by it, the same article may be published in other information reports.
1.4.3 Publication of some kinds of articles (e.g. translations) in more than one journal is sometimes justifiable, provided certain conditions are met. The primary reference must be cited in the secondary publication.
1.5 Acknowledgement of sources
1.5.1 Proper acknowledgement 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 referring manuscripts or grant applications, must not be used without the explicit written permission of the author of the work and other people involved in these services.
1.6 Authorship of the paper
1.6.1 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 and listed as contributors.
1.6.2 The author identified as contact of Revista de Estudos Criminais 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.
1.7 Conflicts of Interest
1.7.1 All authors should disclose in their manuscript any financial or other substantive conflict of interest that might be constructed to influence the results or interpretation of their manuscript. All sources of financial support for the project should be disclosed. Examples of potential conflicts of interest which should be disclosed include employment, consultancies, stock ownership, honoraria, paid expert testimony, patent applications/registrations, and grants or other funding. Potential conflicts of interest should be disclosed at he earliest possible stage.
1.8 Fundamental errors in published works
1.8.1 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 editor of Revista de Estudos Criminais and cooperate with the editor to retract or correct the problem. If the editor learns form a third party that a published work contains a significant error, it is the obligation of the author to promptly retract or correct the paper.
2. Duties of the Editorial Board
2.1 Publication decisions
2.1.1 The editor of Revista de Estudos Criminais - a double-blind peer reviewed journal - is responsible for deciding which of the articles submitted to the journal should be published. The validation of the work in question and its importance to researchers and readers must always drive such decisions. The editor may decide based on the policies of the journal's editorial board and according to legal requirements relevant to editorial responsibility, intellectual property and plagiarism. The editor may, if necessary, confer with the editorial board or other reviewers in making this decision.
2.2 Fair play
2.2.1 The editor must evaluate manuscripts submitted to Revista de Estudos Criminais exclusively for their intellectual content without any regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship or political philosophy of the authors.
2.3.1 The editor, the members of the editorial board and any other editorial staff of Revista de Estudos Criminais must not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than corresponding author or upon his/her written request, as well as reviewers, potential reviewers, members of the editorial board and other editorial staff.
2.4 Conflict of Interest
2.4.1 Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript to Revista de Estudos Criminais must not be used in an editor's own research without the express written consent of the author. Privileged information or ideas obtained through double-blind peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage.
3. Duties of reviewers
3.1 Contribution to editorial decisions
3.1.1 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.
3.1.2 Peer review is an essential component of the quality of formal scholarly communication.
3.2.1 Any selected referee who feels unqualified to review a certain manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the editor and excuse himself from the review process.
3.3.1 Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be shown or discussed with others except as authorized by the author.
3.4 Standards of objectivity
3.4.1 Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is not aligned with the policy of Revista de Estudos Criminais.
3.4.2 Reviewers should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.
3.5 Evaluation of sources
3.5.1 Reviewers should, as far as possible, identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation.
3.5.2 Reviewers should call to the authors' attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published papers.
3.6 Conflict of interest
3.6.1 The content or source disclosed in a submitted manuscript to Revista de Estudos Criminais must not be used in a reviewer's own research without the express written consent of the authors. Privileged information or ideas obtained through double-blind peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage.
3.6.2 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 paper.