Ethical Guidelines

Topoi. Revista de História subscribes to the ethical principles set forth by COPE, in particular:

On the part of the authors

1.1. Sources and data used to produce the text

Authors must clearly present the sources used and the organization of data based on them.

1.2. Access and retention of data

The data collected by authors to write their texts must be retained by them after publication, since, if any editorial review is necessary in the future, they may be requested by the Committee and even made public for clarification purposes.

1.3. Accuracy of the text

Texts published by Topoi must always be accurate and objective; editorial opinions must be clearly identified as such.

1.4. Originality and plagiarism

Authors must ensure that they have written entirely original works and, when using the work and/or words of others, the text must present the appropriate citation. Plagiarism can be characterized in many ways, ranging from copying fragments of other texts to using research results from members of the academic world. Self-plagiarism is when an author reuses previously published texts without proper reformulation or citation. In all its forms, plagiarism constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable.

1.5. Multiple, redundant, and simultaneous publications

In general, an author should not publish manuscripts that describe essentially the same research in more than one journal or primary publication. We consider that submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal simultaneously constitutes unethical publishing behavior.

1.6. Acknowledgement of sources

Appropriate acknowledgement of the work done by others should always be given. Authors should cite publications that were influential in determining the nature of the reported work. Information obtained privately, such as in conversations, correspondence, or discussions with third parties, should not be used or reported without explicit written permission from the source. Information obtained in the course of confidential services, such as refereed manuscripts or grant applications, should not be used without explicit written permission from the author of the work involved in these services.

1.7. Authorization for publication of images

The journal publishes images, provided that the authors present to the editors the legal authorization for publication of those that are still governed by the copyright legislation in force in the country.

1.8. Authorship of the work

Authorship should be limited to those who have made significant contributions to the conception, structure, execution, or interpretation of the reported study. All those who have made a significant contribution should be listed as co-authors. The corresponding author should ensure that all appropriate co-authors are included in the work, and that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the work and agree to its submission for publication.

1.9. Institutional committees

Works that may involve specific ethical issues governed by appropriate institutional committees should present the opinion produced by them. Human rights to privacy must always be observed. In some of these cases, we can count on opinions from the Ethics Committee of the Center for Philosophy and Human Sciences of UFRJ (http://www.cfch.ufrj.br/index.php/comite-de-etica).

1.10. Disclosure and conflicts of interest

All authors must disclose in their manuscript any conflict of interest, whether financial or otherwise relevant, that could be understood as influencing the results of the manuscript’s interpretation. All sources of financial support for the project must be disclosed. Examples of possible conflicts of interest that should be disclosed may include employment, consultancy, stock ownership, honoraria, paid expert testimony, patent applications or registrations, grants or other funding. Possible conflicts of interest should be disclosed as early as possible.

1.11.Basic Errors in Published Works

When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in his or her published work, it is his or her duty to notify the journal editor immediately, and to cooperate with the editor to retract or correct the work. If the editor discovers through a third party that a published work contains significant errors, it is the author’s obligation to immediately retract or correct the work, or to provide evidence to the editor of the accuracy of the original text.

On the part of the Editorial Board

2.1. Publication Decisions

The editor of a peer-reviewed journal is responsible for deciding which articles submitted to the journal will be published. The validity of the work in question and its importance to researchers and readers should always be the driving force behind such decisions. The editor may be guided by the policies of the journal’s editorial board and limited by applicable legal requirements regarding defamation, copyright infringement, and plagiarism.

2.2. Fair Play

An editor should evaluate manuscripts for their intellectual content without regard to the race, sex, sexual orientation, religious beliefs, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the authors.

2.3. Confidentiality

The editor or any other person on the editorial staff should not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript except to the corresponding author, reviewers, potential contributors, and other editorial advisors, as appropriate.

2.4. Disclosure and conflicts of interest

The disclosure of unpublished material in a submitted manuscript should not be used by the editor in his or her own research without the express written permission of the author. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review should be kept confidential and not used for personal gain. Editors should decline to review manuscripts for which they have a conflict of interest, whether resulting from competition, collaboration, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected with the work. Editors should require all contributors to disclose relevant conflicting interests and to publish corrections if conflicting interests are revealed after publication. If necessary, other appropriate measures should be taken, such as publishing a retraction.

2.5. Involvement and cooperation in investigations

An editor should take reasonable measures of accountability when complaints regarding ethical conduct are made regarding a manuscript or published work, in conjunction with the editorial committee (or society). Such measures will generally include contacting the author of the manuscript or paper to provide them with due consideration of the complaints made, but may also include further communication with the relevant institutions and research bodies, and if the complaints are substantiated, the publication of a correction, retraction, note of interest, or other note, if relevant. Any reported act of unethical conduct in publications should be reviewed, even if the report occurs long after publication.

On the part of Reviewers

3.1. Contributions to editorial decisions

Peer review helps the associate editor to make editorial decisions that, when communicated to the author, can lead to improvements in the work. Peer review is an essential component of formal academic communication.

3.2. Promptness

Any selected reviewer who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript, or who knows that a prompt review will be impossible, should notify the editor and request to be removed from the review process.

3.3. Confidentiality

Any manuscript received for review should be treated as a confidential document. Manuscripts should not be shown to or discussed with others unless authorized by the editor.

3.4. Standards of objectivity

Reviews should be conducted objectively, from clear and scientifically supported points of view.

3.5. Interpersonal treatment

Reviewers are urged to communicate their position on the manuscript in a courteous manner, always aiming to improve the text and avoiding any personal attacks or belittling of the author. In case of manifest disregard, the reviews may be edited by the associate editors.

3.5. Acknowledgements of sources

Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument has been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation. The reviewer should also draw the editor’s attention to any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under review and any other published work of which he or she has personal knowledge.

3.6. Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest

Unpublished and disclosed materials in a submitted manuscript should not be used in a reviewer’s personal research without the express written consent of the author. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review should be kept confidential and should not be used for personal advantage. Reviewers should not consider manuscripts for which they have conflicts of interest, whether as a result of competition, collaboration, or other relationship or link with any other author, company, or institution that has a connection with the work.

Ethics Policy and Misconduct, Errata and Retraction

Any information published erroneously or that harms the integrity of a member of the academic community will be subject to investigation by the journal’s editorial committee. This does not apply to differences of interpretation or honest mistakes, but to misconduct.

In the event of an error, the journal is responsible for publishing an erratum and, in the event of misconduct, the incident will be exposed through a retraction, which may be accompanied by the permanent exclusion of future submissions.

Ethics Committee

In the case of research that requires approval by the ethics committee of the institutions that hosted it, authors are urged to attach a declaration of compliance when submitting the manuscript.