Publication Ethics and Best Practices

The journal Alexandria follows recommendations for ethical standards, transparency and responsibility in scientific communication shared by national and international institutions, such as the guidelines, guides and flowcharts of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing (DOAJ, COPE, OASPA e WAME), Recommendations for Promoting Integrity in Scientific Journal Publications (CSE), among others.

The policy adopted by the journal aims to promote responsibility and integrity in the publication of scientific articles, considering all people involved in the editorial process.

Authorship and Contribution

Alexandria recommends that authorship be attributed to contributors who have made a substantial contribution to the article and are accountable for the work and its published form, meeting the four basic authorship criteria listed by the ICMJE:

  1. Substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work; or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data for the work; 
  2. Drafting the work or revising it critically for important intellectual content; 
  3. Final approval of the version to be published; 
  4. Agreement to be responsible for all aspects of the work, ensuring that issues relating to the accuracy or completeness of any part of the work are properly investigated and resolved.

Authors must be mentioned in the [notes template] available in the journal’s authors guidelines, according to the CRediT.

Acknowledgments may be used to denote contributions to the work that do not meet the authorship criteria listed, but which should still be recognized.

Conflicts of Interest

According to CSE, conflicts can be personal (self-interest, submissions from acquaintances, competitors, etc.), financial (funding, subsidies, salaries, patents, etc.) or non-financial (academic, political, thematic, etc.).

If the publication may generate any potential conflict of interest, authors must declare this when submitting the notes template available in the guidelines for authors, mentioning any links to funding bodies, public or private institutions, as well as people involved.

Editors and reviewers must not take part in the editorial process of submissions for which there is a conflict of interest, delegating decision-making when appropriate.

Political or ideological positioning, ethnic, gender or religious diversity, as well as differences in theoretical and methodological perspectives should not influence the actions and decisions made during the editorial process.

Data Sharing and Research Reproducibility

Alexandria encourages authors, during the manuscript submission process, to deposit research-related data in a trusted repository and/or submit the files as supplementary material, authorizing their publication alongside the article, provided it is legally and ethically permissible. The following can be considered research data: raw or processed data, tables, charts, unused statistical information, codes, datasets, among others.

Authors must inform at the time of submission, using the notes template available in the journal’s author guidelines, whether:

  1. The dataset supporting the results of the study is not publicly available;
  2. The entire dataset supporting the results of the study has been published within the article itself;
  3. The entire dataset supporting the results of the study has been published in the article and in the “Supplementary Materials” section.

Ethical Supervision

Studies containing the results of research carried out in Brazil involving human beings must have the approval of Research Ethics Committee. Under the same conditions, foreign authors must have the approval of a equivalent body in the country of origin of the research.

Thus, authors of articles on research with human beings must declare the approval, informing the Certificate of Submission for Ethical Appraisal when submitting to Alexandria.

Allegations of Research Misconduct

The journal adopts the CSE’s definitions of research misconduct, “[...] in which harm occurs in the context of, or as a direct result of, research practices that fail to meet ethical standards or as a direct result of the investigator’s irresponsible behavior”.

Examples of misconduct include data falsification, citation manipulation, plagiarism, and redundant publication.

During the editorial process, the journal Alexandria checks for signs of misconduct through a qualitative analysis of the submission’s form and content. Plagiarism detection is carried out using text similarity detection software.

Communications about suspected misconduct can be reported at any time, by anyone, to the official email of the journal Alexandria. It is recommended that as much information as possible be provided so that the editorial team can assess the situation and initiate an investigation.

In case of doubts, clarifications, and decision-making, the editorial team follows the flowcharts and guidelines of the COPE.

Errata, retractions and expressions of concern

The journal Alexandria adopts the definitions of errata, retractions, and expressions of concern from the NLM, endorsed by the CSE.

In any case, the outcome will only be reached after the editorial team has investigated the facts and determined the actions needed to resolve the matter, guided by COPE’s guidelines.

Gender identity

The journal Alexandria is committed to promoting diversity and equality in scientific communication. For the inclusion of a social name or correction of a legal first name, please contact our editorial team by email, indicating: Change of author name from X to Y, attaching the completed and signed Trans Self-Declaration form (preferably with an authentic electronic signature).