Editorial ethics

The ethical procedures followed by Psique throughout the editorial process are based on the Codes of Conduct of the Council of Science Editors (2012) and the Committee on Publication Ethics (2011).


Editors' Responsibilities

Publishing decisions

The editor is responsible for deciding which of the works submitted to the journal will be published.

The editor will evaluate manuscripts regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation of the authors, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship or political philosophy.

The decision will be based on the importance of the study, originality and clarity, and validity of the study and its relevance to the objectives of the journal. Current legal requirements regarding defamation, copyright infringement and plagiarism must be respected.

Confidentiality

The editor and any member of the editorial team may not disclose any information about a manuscript sent for review to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisors, and the editor.

Disclosure and conflicts of interest

Other data and study materials, in documents sent for submission, will not be used by the editor, or by members of the editorial board, for their own research purposes, without the author's explicit written consent.


Reviewers' Responsibilities

Contribution to editorial decisions

The peer review process helps the editor and the editorial board to make editorial decisions and can also serve the author in improving his article.

Speed

Any selected reviewer who feels disqualified to review a submitted manuscript, or anticipates that immediate review will be impossible, must notify the editor and withdraw from the review process.

Confidentiality

All manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be disclosed or discussed with others, except when authorized by the editor.

Standards of objectivity

Comments should be conducted objectively. Personal criticisms of authors are unacceptable. Reviewers must express their views clearly, supported by objective arguments.

Recognition of sources

Reviewers should identify cases in which a publication referred to in the document was not mentioned in the reference list. They must indicate whether observations or arguments derived from other publications are accompanied by the respective source. The reviewers will notify the editor of any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript being evaluated and any other published document of which they are aware.

Disclosure and conflict of interest

Insider information or insights obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal purposes. Reviewers should not evaluate manuscripts in which they have potential conflicts of interest, resulting from competitive, collaborative or other relationships, or relationships with any of the authors, companies or institutions associated with the documents.


Authors' Responsibilities

Scientific reporting standards

Authors of original research reports must present an accurate account of the work performed, as well as an objective discussion of its meaning. The underlying data must be accurately presented in the manuscript. An article must contain sufficient details and references to allow other researchers to replicate the study. Fraudulent or inaccurate statements are unethical and unacceptable.

Data access and retention

Authors may be asked to provide raw study data with the document for editorial review and authors should be prepared to make study data publicly available. Authors must guarantee, at any time, access to the data by other competent professionals, for at least ten years after publication (preferably, through an institutional data repository or other data centers), provided that the confidentiality of the data participants can be protected and legal data rights are respected.

Originality, plagiarism and recognition of sources

Authors will only send entirely original works and will cite others' work and / or words accordingly. Publications that influenced the definition of the nature of the work should also be cited.

Multiple, redundant or concurrent publication

Documents that describe essentially the same research should not be published in more than one magazine. Submitting the same article to more than one magazine constitutes unethical editorial behavior and is unacceptable.

Articles that have been published as copyrighted material in other publications cannot be submitted. In addition, manuscripts submitted for publication to the journal and in the process of being revised cannot be submitted to other copyrighted publications. However, when submitting a manuscript, the author (s) retain the material rights to the publication. In case of publication, they allow the use of their work under a license, which allows others to copy, distribute and transmit the work, as well as adapt the work and make commercial use of it.

Article authorship

Authorship should be limited to those who have contributed significantly to the conception, design, execution or interpretation of the reported study. All those who have made significant contributions should be listed as co-authors.

The corresponding author ensures that all contributing co-authors, and not others not involved, are included in the list of authors.

The correspondence author will also verify that all co-authors have approved the final version of the document and that they have agreed to submit it for publication.

Disclosure and conflicts of interest

All authors must include a statement to express any conflicts of interest, financial or other substantive, that may be considered to influence the results or their interpretation in the manuscript. All sources of financial support for the project must be disclosed.

Fundamental errors in published works

When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in his own published work, it is the author's obligation to promptly notify the magazine's editor and cooperate with the editor to correct the article in the form of errata.

Measures against Violation of the Code of Ethics

Psique's Editorial Board will seek, by all means at its disposal, to ensure that ethical standards and good editorial practices are ensured by all stakeholders in the editorial process.

If any unethical behavior is detected by the authors, the Editorial Board of Psique may initiate an investigation process, when supported by sufficient evidence, and initiate one of the following actions, which it will communicate to the author involved:

a) Inform the author about unethical behavior and about the necessary steps to correct the error and avoid future errors;

b) Publication of formal notice, detailing the unethical behavior;

c) Formal letter to the author, the entity to which it is affiliated and the entity that supports the investigation;

d) Formal refusal of the article or removal of the article, the author, indexing services and readers being informed of the reasons for the decision;

e) Report the case to the respective professional organization or higher authority for further investigation of the case.


Taking up references

Committee on Publication Ethics (2011). Code of Conduct and Best-Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors. Retrieved from http://publicationethics.org/files/Code_of_conduct_for_journal_editors_Mar11.pdf

Scott-Lichter, D. & Editorial Policy Committee, Council of Science Editors (2012). CSE's White Paper on Promoting Integrity in Scientific Journal Publications. Retrieved from https://www.councilscienceeditors.org/wp-content/uploads/entire_whitepaper.pdf

Electronic ISSN

e-ISSN 2183-4806

Protocols

PSIQUE has established protocols with:

Creative Commons License

English English Português Português