Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement

R:I upholds the compromise of assuring the best ethical and deontological practices in the review for publication of the proposed articles. All involved parts, authors, editors, and reviewers will contribute to the upholding of the ethical behavior as defined by the orientations of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Thus, each of the parts must abide by the following practices:


Editors:

  • Are responsible for the contents published by the Journal;
  • Try to know the interests of the readers and the authors; as well as constantly improve the Journal;
  • Evaluate the proposals solely on their academic merits;
  • Not use non-published research for their own research without the explicit consent of the author;
  • Assure a just scientific review process, impartial and timely, as well as the transparency of the editorial processes and the publication of the manuscripts;
  • Warrant the confidentiality of the manuscripts;
  • Ensuring the integrity of the R:I record.



Authors:

  • Articles must present an objective discussion of the relevance of the research work with sufficient details and references;
  • Warrant that their work is original, and if other author's work is being used, explicitly refer that;
  • Any form of plagiarism constitutes an unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable, as well as submitting the same manuscript to more than one publication;
  • In cases of co-authorship, consensus must be warranted in the final approval of the manuscript for evaluation or publication;
  • Books reviews must be objective, comprehensive, and contain the state of the art.



Reviewers:

  • Warrant the confidentiality during the process of evaluation;
  • State any conflict of interest;
  • Not use for own benefit ideas obtained through peer review process;
  • The recommendation to accept or reject a manuscript must be based on its relevance, originality and clarity, as well as on the validity of the study and its fit in the journal;
  • The review must be objective and the recommendations will be supported by solid arguments so that the authors may improve their text. Recent publications on the subject must be recommended, when these are not quoted;
  • The reviewer must inform the editors if the manuscript does not fit its area of expertise, or if can not respect the deadline;
  • Respect established deadlines.

FCT logobrancoFCSH logobrancoTEPSA logobrancoRIBEI logobranco