Code of Ethics

CODE OF ETHICS

The Revista de Direito da Faculdade Guanambi is committed to ethics and quality in its publication. We support the standards of expected ethical behavior for all parties involved in publishing in our journal: the author, the journal editor, the reviewers, and the institution. Plagiarism or any other unethical behavior is not allowed.

As a national and international journal, it is based on the ethical conduct set out in the regulations of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), the Scientific Electronic Library Online (SciELO), and the Brazilian Association of Graduate Studies and Research in Administration (ANPAD).

 

DUTIES OF THE EDITORS

Fair play and editorial independence:  The Editorial Team reviews submitted materials solely based on academic merit and their relevance to the journal's focus and scope, regardless of the author's race, gender, sexual orientation, ethnicity, age, citizenship, religious belief, political ideology, or institutional affiliation. The final decision to publish a material, based on the opinions issued by the ad hoc peer reviewers, is exclusive to the Editorial Team, without external influence, and it has authority over the entire content and editorial process of the journal.

Confidentiality: Editors and any member of the editorial staff must not disclose any information about a submitted submission to anyone other than the author themselves, reviewers, potential contributors, other editorial advisers, and the institution, as appropriate.

Disclosure and conflicts of interest: Editors must not use unpublished content used in submissions to the Revista de Direito da Faculdade Guanambi without the express written consent of the author. Editors must refrain from reviewing submissions in which there is any conflict of interest resulting from competitive or collaborative relationships or from any other type of relationship or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions to which the submissions are linked. 

Intervention and cooperation in investigations: Editors must take reasonable action within sensible response times when ethical complaints are brought in relation to a submission or published article. 

 

DUTIES OF THE REVIEWERS: 

Contribution to editorial decisions: Peer review helps editors make editorial decisions and, through editorial communications with the author, can also assist the author in improving the article. 

Punctuality: Any selected reviewer who does not feel qualified to review the research reported in a submission, or knows that immediate review will be impossible, must notify the editor and decline the review process. 

Confidentiality: All submissions submitted for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be shown or discussed with third parties. 

Objectivity standards: The opinions must be conducted objectively and reviewers must express their opinions clearly with supporting arguments. 

Identification of bibliographic sources: Reviewers must identify relevant and accessible works that have not been mentioned by the authors. The reviewer must also draw the editor's attention to any substantial similarity or overlap between the paper in question and any other published document of which they are personally aware. 

Disclosure and conflicts of interest: Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential, and their use for personal gain is prohibited. Reviewers should not consider submissions in which they have any conflict of interest resulting from competitive or collaborative relationships or any other type of relationship or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions to which the submissions are linked. 

 

DUTIES OF THE AUTHORS: 

General rules: Authors of original submissions must present an accurate account of the research carried out, as well as an objective analysis of its significance. Underlying data must be accurately presented in the text. A document must contain sufficient details and references to allow others to replicate the research. Fraudulent or intentionally inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable. 

Originality and plagiarism: Authors must ensure that their works are fully original and, if the authors have used the research, words, or expressions of other authors, these must be properly cited and referenced. Plagiarism in all its forms is an unethical and unacceptable publishing behavior.

Multiple, redundant, or competing publications: An author must not, in general, publish papers that essentially describe the same research in more than one journal that requires originality. Submitting the same paper to more than one journal simultaneously, or publishing the same research in different journals, is an unethical and unacceptable publishing behavior. 

Identification of bibliographic sources: Third-party research must always be properly acknowledged. Authors must cite publications that have influenced the determination of the nature of the reported work. Information obtained privately, such as in informal conversations, correspondence, or discussions with third parties, must not be used or reported without the source's explicit written permission. Information obtained in the course of confidential activities, such as submissions for review or funding projects, must not be used without the explicit written authorization of the author of the work involved in those activities. 

Authorship: Authorship must be attributed to those who have contributed significantly to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the reported study. All those who have made significant contributions must be listed as co-authors. Persons who have participated in substantive aspects of the research project must also be recognized or listed as contributors. The lead author must ensure that only suitable co-authors are included in the article and that all co-authors have read and approved the final version of the document and agreed to its submission to the Revista de Direito da Faculdade Guanambi. 

Disclosure and conflicts of interest: All authors must disclose in their papers any financial or other conflict of interest that could influence the results or interpretations of their submissions. All sources of financial support for the project must be disclosed. 

Peer review: Authors must be available to cooperate, responding to requests from the Editorial Team on the steps of the editorial process, responding point-to-point and in a timely manner to peer review comments/suggestions/corrections, and returning the material to the Revista de Direito da Faculdade Guanambi within the established deadline. In addition, authors must respond promptly for explanations and approval of the layout and language review steps, copyright authorizations, etc.

Fundamental errors in published articles: When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in their own published article, it is the author's obligation to immediately notify the editors of Revista de Direito da Faculdade Guanambi or the institution and cooperate with the editors to retract or correct the article. 

 

DUTIES OF THE PUBLISHING INSTITUTION

Management of unethical publishing behavior: In cases of alleged or proven scientific misconduct, fraudulent publication, or plagiarism, the publishing institution, the Centro Universitário FG (UniFG), in close collaboration with the Editorial Team, will take all appropriate measures to resolve the situation. This includes the immediate publication of an erratum, explanation, or, in the most serious case, retraction of the affected work. The publishing institution, together with the Editorial Team, will take reasonable steps to identify and prevent the publication of material with research misconduct, and in no case will it encourage such misconduct or knowingly allow such misconduct to occur.

Access to the journal’s content: The Revista de Direito da Faculdade Guanambi  offers immediate and free access to its content, following the principle that the free availability of scientific knowledge provides greater democratization of knowledge. Users may read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link the full texts of articles or use them for any other lawful purpose without asking the prior permission of the publisher or author, as long as they respect the CC BY NC SA 4.0 license  used by the journal. Authors may republish the materials elsewhere, provided that the Editorial Team is informed and only once the material is available on the Revista de Direito da Faculdade Guanambi’s website.

 

PROCESS FOR ANALYZING VIOLATIONS OF THE SCIENTIFIC INTEGRITY GUIDELINES

The Revista de Direito da Faculdade Guanambi has as its main objective the production of consistent scientific knowledge based on an editorial process of control, evaluation, and review of works guided by parameters of scientificity and integrity in accordance with national and international agencies and institutions related to scientific publishing.

In this sense, the guidelines of the following agencies are used as guides for the editorial process: 

• Brazilian Association of Scientific Editors
• PKP guides for editors and reviewers
• WAME
• Committee on Publication Ethics(COPE) and its best practice guidelines for journal editors
• Code of Good Scientific Practice of FAPESP
• CNPq’s basic guidelines for integrity in scientific activity
• Elsevier publishing Ethics Resource Kit (PERK) for editors
• Guidelines on best practices for strengthening ethics in scientific publication - SciELO

a) RECEIPT OF INFORMATION

Anyone can, at any time, send reports of acts that violate the established scientific integrity guidelines to the email [email protected]

Information and suspicions of acts that violate the scientific integrity guidelines will be received by the editorial team of the Revista de Direito da Faculdade Guanambi, which will investigate the described facts.

B) ADVERSARY PROCEEDING AND FAIR HEARING

If it is verified that the facts described in the information are improbable, or that it is not an act that violates the guidelines of scientific integrity, the information will be shelved.

Otherwise, if the veracity of the facts described in the information is verified and if it is an act that violates the scientific integrity guidelines, the author(s) will be informed, so that, within twenty (20) days, they can provide the necessary data and formulate their defense.

If the author(s) finds that the deadline is too short to provide the necessary information, they may request an extension via e-mail informing the time needed to formulate the defense.

c) JUDGMENT

Once the defense of the author(s) has been received, the Editor-in-Chief will judge the information of violation of the scientific integrity guidelines within thirty (30) days.

In all cases, the decision will be sent by email to the author(s).

In case of disagreement with the decision taken by the Editor-in-Chief, the author(s) may request, via email, the re-examination of the decision, presenting the reasons for it.

d) PUNISHMENTS

If the violation of the scientific integrity guidelines is confirmed, the Editor-in-Chief may apply the following sanctions to the author(s), individually or cumulatively: 

• Communication in an instructive tone about the issue;
• Warning about the conduct;
• Publication of news or editorial on the issue;
• Formal communication of the fact to the home institution or funding agency;
• Suspension or exclusion of the reviewer or editor;
• Formal retraction of the published article (see SciELO’s Retraction Guide);
• Prohibition of new submissions for a certain period;
• Formal communication of the case to the relevant authorities of the investigation.