1.1. Sources and information used in submissions
Authors should clearly present the sources with which they engage and the manner in which they have framed the information drawn from them.
1.2. Access to and retention of information
Information collected by authors as part of the production of their submissions must be retained by said authors after publication; in the event of future editorial revision, the Committee may request said information, and may determine that it be made public for the sake of clarification.
Articles published by TOPOI must always be precise and objective; editorial opinions will be clearly identified as such.
1.4. Originality and plagiarism
Authors must guarantee that they have written completely original works. Should they reproduce the work and/or words of others, the text should include due citation. Plagiarism may take a number of forms, such as copying fragments of other texts or using the results of research conducted by other members of the academic community. No matter how it manifests itself, plagiarism is an unethical and unacceptable practice.
1.5. Multiple, redundant or similar publications
As a general rule, authors should not publish manuscripts that describe essentially the same research in more than one journal or primary publication. We consider that the submission of the same manuscript to more than one journal at the same time constitutes an unethical publications practice.
1.6. Source recognition
The work of others should always be duly recognized. Authors must cite publications that influenced the nature of their work. Information obtained personally, such as in conversations, correspondence, or discussions with third parties, must not be used or reported without the explicit written permission of the source. Information obtained through the provision of confidential services, such as access to manuscripts or applications to fellowships, must not be used without the explicit permission of the relevant author.
1.7. Authorization for the publication of images
TOPOI will publish images, given that the authors present the editors with the legal authorization for the reproduction of those still bound by copyright in the relevant country.
Authorship should be limited to those who have made significant contributions to the conception, structure, execution, or interpretation of the study at hand. All those who make significant contributions should be listed as co-authors. The corresponding author must ensure that all appropriate co-authors, and no inappropriate co-authors, are credited, and that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of their work and consent to its being submitted for publication.
1.9. Institutional committees
Work that may involve ethical issues overseen by specific institutional committees must present an evaluation by said committees. Human rights to privacy must be respected. In certain cases, we may solicit evaluations from the Ethics Committee of the Center of Philosophy and Social Science at the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro
1.10. Disclosure and conflicts of interest
All authors should disclose in their manuscripts any conflict of interest, whether financial or another relevant factor that may be understood as influencing the way in which the manuscript may be interpreted. All sources of financial support for the project must be disclosed. Examples of potential conflicts of interest to be disclosed may include employment, consulting relationships, stock holdings, honoraria, paid specialists’ work, patent applications or patents, fellowships, or other sources of financing. Potential conflicts of interest should be disclosed as soon as possible.
1.11. Basic errors in published work
When an author discovers a significant error or an imprecision in his or her already published work, he or she is obliged to immediately notify the editor of the publication and collaborate with the aforementioned to issue a retraction or correction. If the editor discovers via third parties that the published work contains significant errors, the author will be obliged to immediately retract or correct the work, o provide evidence to the editor regarding the accuracy of the original submission.
2.1. Publication decisions
The editor of a peer-reviewed publication is responsible for the decision as to which articles submitted to the publication will be published. The validation of the work in question and its importance for researchers and readers alike must always drive said decisions. The editor may be guided by the policies of the publication’s editorial committee and limited by prevailing legal requirements with regard to defamation, copyright violations, and plagiarism.
2.2. Fair play
An editor must judge manuscripts on their intellectual content, with no regard for authors’ race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political leanings.
The editor, or any other person on the editorial team, must not divulge any information about any manuscript submitted to the publication, except to the corresponding author, reviewers, potential collaborators and other editorial board members, as may prove relevant.
2.4. Disclosure and conflicts of interest
Unpublished material submitted in a manuscript must not be used by the editor in his/her own research without the express written permission of the author. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and must not be used for personal gain. Editors must refuse to evaluate manuscripts in cases where they may have conflicts of interest resulting from competition, collaboration, or other relationships with or ties to any of the authors, companies, or institutions involved in a given submission. Editors must request that all contributors disclose relevant conflicts of interest and that they publish corrections if conflicts are revealed after publication. If necessary, other measures may be taken, such as the publication of a retraction.
2.5. Involvement in and cooperation with investigations
Editors must take reasonable accountability measures when complaints of ethics violations are presented to the publisher (or society) in regard to a manuscript or published piece. Said measures will generally include contacting the author of the manuscript or piece and conveying an evaluation of the complaint, but may extend to future communications with relevant institutions and body of research; and if the complaints are borne out by evidence, publishing a correction, retraction, or other announcement. Any act related to unethical publications practices must be analyzed, even if reported significantly after publication.
3.1. Contributions to editorial decision-making
The peer review process helps the editor arrive at editorial decisions, and the editor, in communication with authors, can help improve their work. Peer revision is an essential component of formal academic communications.
Any selected evaluator who feels unqualified to review the research presented in a manuscript, or who is aware that a prompt review will not be possible, must notify the editor and request to be removed from the review process.
Any manuscript received for review should be treated as a confidential document. Manuscripts should not be shown to others or discussed with them, except with the permission of the editor.
Revisions must be carried out objectively, from clear, science-based points of view.
3.5. Recognition of sources
Reviewers should identify relevant publications that have not been cited by authors. Any affirmation that an observation, derivation, or argument has been presented previously should be accompanied by the relevant citation. Reviewers should also alert editors to any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under review and any other published work of which they have firsthand knowledge.
3.6. Disclosure and conflicts of interest
Unpublished material submitted in a manuscript must not be used by reviewers in their own research without the express written permission of the author. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and must not be used for personal gain. Reviewers should not evaluate manuscripts in cases where they may have conflicts of interest resulting from competition, collaboration, or other relationships with or ties to any of the authors, companies, or institutions involved in a given submission.