Code of ethics

The code of ethics adopted for JAS is based on the Manual of Good Practices of the National Association of Postgraduate Studies and Research in Administration (ANPAD, 2017) and the Code of Conduct for Scientific Editors (Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors ), made available by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), and aims to provide reliability for JAS editors, authors, reviewers and readers.

Thus, the JAS code of ethics comprises:

1. Issues relating to publication and authorship

Reference list and funding
Authors must list and cite appropriately, according to the instructions provided on a specific page, the works that formed the basis for the development of their research. In addition, they should provide information, if applicable, about the sources of research funding, either as an acknowledgment at the end of the text or in a footnote at the beginning.

Plagiarism and fraudulent data
Authors must declare that texts are their own work and that any third-party material is referenced and used legitimately. Plagiarism, falsification or fabrication of data will not be permitted.

Publication of the same research in more than one journal
Authors must declare that the articles submitted for evaluation and their essential content are original and are not being evaluated by another publication.

2. Authors' responsibilities

Authors must ensure that all data presented in the article is real and authentic;

All authors must have contributed significantly to the development of the study;
The authors included in the article must have contributed significantly to the development of the work, and it is not permitted to include additional authors after acceptance of the article.

All authors must provide, when necessary, corrections or retractions of errors;

Authors must ensure that the research, where appropriate, has been approved by the competent body (for example, the Research Ethics Committee);

Authors may be invited to be evaluators in the journal's peer review process;
If authors manage to publish a paper in JAS, they may be asked to review a paper for the journal. If authors are asked to act in this role, they must do so with dedication, readiness and scientific seriousness, contributing to the improvement of the article.

3. The peer review process and the reviewer’s responsibilities

The evaluator must refuse to perform evaluations for which he or she does not feel qualified.
He should only agree to evaluate a manuscript if:

- Have adequate knowledge of the subject to carry out an adequate assessment;

- Being able to meet the deadline;

- Have no conflict of interest with the research, authors and/or funders of the research being evaluated;

The evaluator must declare possible conflicts of interest (personal, financial, intellectual, professional, political or religious) to the JAS editorial team to better align the evaluations.

Yet:

The reviewer must inform the editor if the author's identity is known to the editor.
The evaluator must not use or inappropriately appropriate the knowledge acquired during the article evaluation process.
Reviewed articles must be treated confidentially. The reviewer must respect the confidentiality of peer review and must not reveal details of a manuscript or its evaluation, during or after the review process.

The reviewer must be objective and constructive, refraining from hostility and avoiding personally defamatory or derogatory comments.
The evaluator must indicate the flaws that can be corrected, pointing out what must be done for this purpose, evaluating the cost-benefit of each requested change in terms of effective improvement in the quality of the manuscript.
The evaluator must suggest relevant references to studies that were not cited, when scientifically relevant to the research and/or its reformulation.
The evaluator should seek to indicate any likely changes in the first evaluation of the article, avoiding new recommendations when the reworked item is returned.

4. Editorial responsibilities

JAS editors should work, whenever possible, to:

- Meet the needs of readers and authors;
- Constantly improve the journal;
- Guarantee the quality of the material they publish;
- Promote freedom of expression;
- Maintain the integrity of the academic record;
- Prevent business needs from compromising intellectual standards;
- Publish corrections, clarifications, retractions and apologies when necessary.

Editors must strive to maintain the quality and relevance of the publication, which includes ensuring that the evaluation of submitted works is objective, fair and conducted in accordance with the norms and standards of scientific research in the field of Administration. Editors, through the selection of evaluators, should seek to promote a competent and impartial evaluation of the submitted texts.

Editors should look for reviewers who do not belong to the same institution as the authors and are not co-authors of the same. They should also seek to route submissions to assessors with qualifications commensurate with the work being assessed.

JAS editors have full responsibility and authority to reject/accept texts submitted to the magazine, that is, the final decision to accept or reject articles rests with the editors, who consider the quality, originality, relevance and adherence to JAS's editorial line.

This decision may contradict the recommendations identified by the evaluators, as long as it is duly substantiated.

The editor must not have any conflict of interest regarding the articles he rejects/accepts.

If a conflict of interest is identified, the editor will pass responsibility for the decision to a member of the editorial committee who is free from such a conflict.

Editors should only accept a paper if they are reasonably certain about that decision.

Editors must publish corrections when they find an error in the publication.

Editors must preserve the anonymity of reviewers.

Everyone involved in the evaluation process must guarantee the confidential treatment of submitted manuscripts.

Editors must not use or misappropriate knowledge acquired during the article evaluation process.

5. Publication Ethics Issues

Monitoring/safeguarding publication ethics by the Editorial Board

The JAS Editorial Board is responsible for monitoring compliance with this code of ethics. In addition, you must seek to be up to date with changes in scientific publication standards in the area of Administration.

Guidelines for retracting articles

JAS editors may consider retracting an article if:

- There is clear evidence that the results are unreliable, whether as a result of misconduct (e.g. data fabrication) or honest error (e.g. calculation error or experimental error);
- Results have been previously published elsewhere without adequate references, permission or justification (i.e. cases of redundant publication);
- There is plagiarism;
- The article reports unethical research.

Retraction notices must mention the reasons and basis for the retraction (to distinguish cases of misconduct from those of honest mistakes) and must also specify who is retracting the article. They must be published in all versions of the magazine (electronic and printed, if available) and must include the title of the article and its respective authors.

Maintain the integrity of the academic record

Upon recognizing the publication of any misleading statement or distorted account, the Editorial Board must promptly correct it and give correction due to prominence in the journal.

If, after appropriate investigation, an item is proven to be fraudulent, it must be removed. The retraction must be clearly identifiable to readers and indexing systems.