Publication Ethics and Best Practices

ethic@ - An international Journal for Moral Philosophy follows recommendations on standards of ethics, transparency, and responsibility in scholarly communication shared by national and international institutions, such as the guidelines, best practices, and flowcharts of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing (DOAJ, COPE, OASPA and 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 individuals involved in the editorial process.

Authorship and contribution

ethic@ recommends that authorship be attributed to individuals who have made a substantial contribution to the article and are responsible for the work and its published form, meeting the four basic criteria for authorship 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 accountable for all aspects of the work, ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.

Authors must be identified in the publication data template available in the journal’s submission guidelines in accordance with the CRediT taxonomy.

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

Conflicts of interest

According to the CSE, conflicts may be personal (self-interests, submissions by acquaintances, competitors, etc.), financial (funding, grants, salaries, patents, etc.), or non-financial (academic, political, thematic, etc.).

If the publication may give rise to any potential conflict of interest, authors must declare it at the time of submission using the publication data template available in the submission guidelines, indicating any links to funding bodies, public or private institutions, as well as individuals involved.

Editors and reviewers must not participate in the editorial process of submissions in which a conflict of interest exists, delegating decision-making when appropriate.

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

Data sharing and reproducibility

ethic@ encourages authors, during the manuscript submission process, where legally and ethically possible, to deposit research-related data in a trusted repository and/or to submit files as supplementary documents, authorizing their publication alongside the article.

Research data may include: raw or processed data, tables, charts, and statistical information not used in the article, codes, datasets, among others.

Authors must indicate at the time of submission, using the publication data template available in the journal’s 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 oversight

Works containing results of research conducted in Brazil involving human subjects must have approval from a Research Ethics Committee (CEP). Under the same conditions, foreign authors must have approval from a CEP or an equivalent body in the country where the research was conducted.

Thus, authors of articles related to research involving human subjects must declare CEP approval and provide the opinion number at the time of submission to ethic@.

Allegations of research misconduct

The journal adopts the CSE 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 irresponsible behavior by the investigator.”

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

During the editorial process, ethic@ verifies indications of misconduct through a qualitative analysis of the form and content of the submitted text. Plagiarism detection is carried out using text similarity detection software.

Communications regarding suspected misconduct may be reported at any time, by any individual, to the official email of ethic@. It is recommended that as much information as possible be provided so that the editorial team can verify the situation and initiate an investigation.

In cases of doubt, clarification, and decision-making, the editorial team is guided by the flowcharts and guidelines of the COPE, with the Center for Ethics and Political Philosophy serving as the decision-making body for unforeseen cases.

Errata, retractions, and expressions of concern

ethic@ adopts the definitions of the NLM, endorsed by the CSE, for errata, retractions, and expressions of concern.

In all cases, outcomes will only be determined after fact-finding by the editorial team and the establishment of the necessary actions for resolution, guided by the COPE guidelines.

Gender identity

ethic@ is committed to promoting diversity and equality in scholarly communication. To include a social name or to rectify a legal first name, please contact our editorial team by email, indicating "change of authorship name from X to Y," and attaching the completed and signed Trans Person Self-Declaration form (preferably with a verifiable electronic signature).