In particular,
a) Authors must submit their scientific work in accordance to results found, refraining from manipulating them according to their particular interests or presenting conclusions that do not provide sufficient details and references for the replication of the experiments by other researchers. When submitting a scientific paper, authors must ensure that the article is original, unpublished, and free of any elements that could eventually characterize a copy. Plagiarism, regardless of the form it takes, represents unethical and reproachable behavior, for which reason the journal will immediately reject the article, without prejudice to other measures. The duplicate submission of the scientific article to more than one journal also characterizes contrary behavior to the ethical norms of academia and, in cases like this, the scientific article will also be rejected. In the case of co-authorship, the submitting author should ensure that all co-authors agree with the final version of the article, as well as with its publication.
b) The editors must perform the desk review evaluation procedures solely according to scientific merit criteria of the submitted article, refraining from any kind of favoritism to those who may be close to them or even discrimination between authors for any reason. Regarding scientific articles still pending publication, editors are forbidden to use information obtained from such papers in their own research and publications without the express consent of the author responsible for publishing them. Editors also assume the commitment of confidentiality, consisting of the impossibility of disclosing any information about manuscripts submitted to the journal to any other person, except in cases of direct contact with members of the editorial board, reviewers and the author himself. In the event of complaints by authors or any other collaborators, it is the editors' duty to adopt immediate and effective responses to remedy the problem.
c) The reviewers must act, through the evaluation of the scientific papers submitted and according to their research experience, in a way that directly contributes to the journal's development. In the event of lack of the necessary qualification, either academic or even thematic, as well as conflict of interest, it is the reviewer's duty to communicate to the editorial team, as soon as possible, the impossibility of correctly evaluating the research, so that another reviewer may be designated without prejudice to the journal's deadlines. Throughout the scientific evaluation process, reviewers are committed to maintaining the confidentiality of privileged information or ideas obtained from the research being evaluated, and that they will not be used as a means of obtaining personal advantage. The evaluation of the manuscripts should be carried out through objective comments, allowing reviewers to use opinions structured in references and supporting arguments, without any offensive, discriminatory language, or language that is not in accordance with the reviewer's function.
This Academic Ethics Policy is based on recommendations by Elsevier and the COPE - Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors.
The editor-in-chief and other editors use iThenticate software to detect plagiarism and to identify and prevent publication of articles where research misconduct has occurred. In no event will the journal or its editors encourage misconduct, or knowingly allow such misconduct to occur;
In the event that the editor or editors become aware of any practice of research misconduct, the necessary actions will be taken; If the submission is under evaluation for publication, it will be promptly rejected. If misconduct is found after publication, steps for retraction or correction will be taken, with editors willing to publish corrections, clarifications, retractions and apologies when necessary.
