Editorial Conduct and Ethics

The standards of ethical conduct of the REGMPE for editors, reviewers and authors are based on the standards of good practice of theCommittee on Publication Ethics(COPE) for editors of scientific journals, fromScientific Electronic Library Online(SciELO) - Criteria, policy and procedures for the admission and permanence of scientific journals in the SciELO Brazil Collection - and theNational Association of Graduate Studies and Research in Administration(ANPAD) - Good scientific publication practices - a manual for authors, reviewers, editors and members of the editorial board, which establish parameters for good editorial practices. REGMPE is in agreement and signs theSan Francisco Declaration(DORA) and theCode of Ethics and Conductfrom Editora Conhecimento e Ciência-C & C.

REGMPE aims to guarantee editorial ethics and the quality of articles. Everyone involved in the publication process (authors, editors and reviewers) must adopt standard ethical behavior.

Duties of the Editor-in-Chief and the Review Board

The Editor-in-Chief and the Review Board must evaluate the texts exclusively based on their scientific merit and decide which submitted texts can be published, respecting their respective editorial policy. The decision to publish or not take into account the recommendations of the magazine's team of reviewers.

Any unpublished material included in a submitted article cannot be used by any member of the Review Board and the team of reviewers in their own investigations.

Duties of Reviewers

Reviewers must evaluate objectively and their observations must be clearly grounded, so that authors can use them to improve the text. The review team advises the editor-in-chief as to whether or not to publish submitted texts.

Any reviewer who considers that he or she does not have adequate knowledge to evaluate the submitted text, or that is not available to carry out the review quickly, should inform the editor-in-chief of the magazine and excuse himself from the review process.

REGMPE uses the double blind review process. The submitted texts must be treated as confidential documents and must not be shown or discussed with others.

The reviewers must evaluate the texts based on their content and their comments must be respectful, expressing the points of view in a clear and reasoned way.

Reviewers must identify relevant published works that have not been cited by the authors and any statement that a remark, source or argument has been previously mentioned, must be accompanied by the respective citation. Reviewers should also alert the editor-in-chief of REGMPE to any substantial similarity or overlap between the text in question and any other published work of which they are aware, in order to prevent plagiarism.

Reviewers should refuse to review texts in which they have a conflict of interest resulting from competition, collaboration or other relationships or links with any of the authors, companies or institutions linked to the submitted articles. Any information or ideas obtained through reviews must be kept confidential and not be used for personal gain.

Regardless of the screening performed by the reviewers, the REGMPE team will submit the texts to similarity detection software, using the Crossref Similarity Check.

Duties of Authors

Authors must present an accurate description of the work carried out, an objective discussion on the meaning of the investigation, as well as sufficient details and references to allow other authors to replicate the experimental part. Authors should be prepared to, if asked, give up the raw data related to the submitted text and allow access to that data within a reasonable time.

Authors must ensure that their work is completely original and that it has not been previously published in any other language, and must be properly referenced when this happens. An author should not, in general, publish texts that essentially describe the same research in more than one publication. Authors should cite all publications that have influenced the nature of their work and always highlight the contribution of other authors.

The literature review must also be objective, comprehensive and provide precise explanations regarding the state of the art. The corresponding author must ensure that there is a total consensus among all co-authors in approving the final version of the document and submitting it for publication.

Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the research indicated in the text. Whenever there are other elements that contributed to the research, they should appear in the acknowledgments or be mentioned explicitly as collaborators in an appropriate note. The corresponding author is responsible for keeping co-authors informed about the review process. If the text is accepted, all authors are required to provide a signed statement that the research work is original.

Whenever an author finds a relevant error or inaccuracy in a text that has already been published, he must immediately inform REGMPE and collaborate to retract or correct the text. If REGMPE is aware, from third parties, that a published work contains a major error, the author must collaborate to retract or correct the text, or provide evidence of the accuracy of the original article.

REGMPE considers as unethical and unacceptable:

  • Any fraudulent information (such as empirical investigations not carried out) or intentionally inaccurate;
  • Plagiarism in any form;
  • Submission of the same text to more than one scientific journal.