Ethics Statement

Revista Mundos do Trabalho (e-ISSN: 1984-9222) is a digital publication of the Associação Nacional de História do Trabalho – “GT Mundos do Trabalho/ANPUH” (National Association of Labour History – “GT Mundos do Trabalho / ANPUH”, Brazil). Its objective is to disseminate Brazilian and international academic production in Labour History. The journal receives manuscripts in continuous flow for free section and manuscripts for thematic dossiers, in addition to reviews, interviews, comments on unpublished primary sources, debates, and conferences, in Portuguese (Brazil), Spanish or English. Submissions are examined by the Editorial Team and evaluated by external reviewers. The journal has adopted continuous publication (rolling pass) since 2019.

This Ethics Statement, inspired by the COPE Guidelines, explains the journal’s policies for assuring the promotion of fair and transparent relations between the editorial team, authors, reviewers, and readers, and for protecting the peer-review process. The next sections detail this information.

Editorial Team

Revista Mundos do Trabalho Editorial Team is formed by an Editorial Board, an Executive Editorial Committee, and a Manager, as follows:

Editorial Board

The journal’s Editorial Board is composed by prominent experts on Labour and Social History from great universities across the World: Argentina (Universidad de Buenos Aires), Brazil (several institutions), India (University of Delhi), Netherlands (International Institute of Social History), United Kingdom (University of Nottingham), and United States of America (Duke University, Harvard University, and New York University).

Executive Editorial Committee

The journal’s Executive Editorial Committee is led by an Editor-in-Chief, assisted by Assistant Editors. Editor-in-Chief is responsible for organizing the Assistant Editors’ daily activities, supervising the application of the journal’s Ethics Statement, carrying out the communication, and securing the financial support for the journal. Assistant Editors engage in the mediation of the peer-review process.

Manager

The journal’s Manager is responsible for managing the publishing system.

For details on people and institutions, see the Editorial Team’s page. 

Authors

Authors who want to publish in Revista Mundos do Trabalho must be aware and agree with the following terms:

Authorship

The journal respects historians’ tradition of authorship. A maximum of two researchers can be recognized as authors if both have participated in all stages of preparing the manuscript. This process is understood as defining the subject and the problem, establishing the methodology, performing the survey, the analysis, the interpretation of sources, and writing the text.

Academic Degree Required

The minimum degree required for the submission of manuscripts is that of a doctor. Exceptionally and at the discretion of the Editorial Team, outstanding manuscripts submitted by authors with lower degrees may be evaluated.

Bibliographic References

Every submission of manuscript should present a list of the bibliographic references used by the author(s). The rules for presenting them are stablished in the Authors Guidelines.

Copyright

Authors grant the exclusive rights of first publication to Revista Mundos do Trabalho, with the work simultaneously licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY). This license allows third parties to remix, adapt, and create from the published work, giving due credit for authorship and initial publication in this journal. Authors are authorized to assume additional contracts separately, for the non-exclusive distribution of the version of the work published in this journal (for example publishing in an institutional repository, on a personal website, publishing a translation, or as a book chapter), with acknowledgment of authorship and publication in this journal.

Fees

The journal does not charge fees from authors.

Financial Support

If the research received any financial support (e.g., by a public agency or a foundation), authors must inform the name of the supporter. The rules for presenting this information are established in the Authors Guidelines.

Identification

The journal demands authors to provide an Open Researcher and Contributor ID, or ORCID register, when submitting a manuscript for evaluation. This registration can be created at https://orcid.org/register, free of charge.

Originality

The journal demands that the manuscript submitted is original and unpublished and is not being evaluated for publication by another journal.

Retraction

Authors who publish in the journal must agree to correct possible errors or mistakes if and when asked by editors. For more details, see the Retraction Policy.

Reviewers

Revista Mundos do Trabalho adopts a double-blind peer review process of evaluation of manuscripts. Editors rely on the generosity of experienced external experts on Labour and Social History to produce reviews. In case of conflicting interests, the reviewers should not accept evaluating a manuscript. Details about this process are described in Peer-review Process.

Readers

To assure a greater democratization of scientific knowledge freely available to the public, the journal adopts the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY). Readers have immediate free access to its content. The journal authorizes the distribution, remixing, adaptation, and creation of the work, even for commercial purposes, provided that the credit is attributed to the author.

If readers identify a minor or major issue on a publication, they can whistle-blow on it by contacting the Editor-in-Chief. A guideline for this is in Retraction Policy.

Privacy Policy

All the names, addresses and other information communicated from authors, reviewers, and readers to this journal will be used exclusively for the services provided by this publication and will not be made available for other purposes or to third parties.

Peer-review Process

All manuscripts submitted to Revista Mundos do Trabalho are subject to a double-blind peer review, based on two main principles. The identities of author(s) and reviewers are not revealed to each other, and two external reviewers take part in the evaluation and making decision process. In addition, the evaluation includes four specific steps:

Submission Preparation Checklist

Firstly, the author(s) must verify and comply with the Submission Preparation Checklist:

1) The manuscript is original and unpublished, and is not being evaluated by another journal;
2) The authorship’s identification has been removed from the body of the text, from the notes and from the files properties of all documents submitted for evaluation (review the “Properties” menu in all documents to be uploaded);
3) The submission text files are in format .docx, .rtf or .odt, and its size does not exceed 2 Megabytes;
4) All Internet page addresses included in the text are active and ready to click (e. g., http://www.ibict.br);
5) The text follows all the style standards and bibliographic requirements described on the Authors Guidelines; the text uses italic instead of underlining (except URL addresses); and figures and tables are inserted in the text, not at the end;
6) The author(s) has an ORCID register (https://orcid.org/).

Secondly, the editors examine the adequacy of the manuscript according to the Submission Preparation Checklist and the journal’s thematic scope. Manuscripts that do not follow these criteria will be immediately refused and the author(s) will be informed about the decision. The author(s) can challenge and reverse the decision if the Editors’ mistake is proven.

External Review

If the manuscript complies with the journal’s criteria, it goes to the third step of evaluation. In this case, the Editors choose two external reviewers to evaluate the manuscript and its relevance for the Labour History field, taking into consideration the following aspects: objectives, originality, theoretical foundation, research sources, and methodology. Reviewers must point out relevant published work related to the manuscript’s subject, but not cited by the author. They must decide and justify precisely if the manuscript should be published and choose one of the four options: a) approved without changes; b) approved with minor changes; c) approved with structural changes; d) rejected. Conflicting evaluations are subjected to a third external reviewer and the report is checked by the editors before deciding on the publication's feasibility.

Journal Decision and Appeals

Finally, the editors communicate the journal’s decision to the author(s), as well as the content of the reports. If the manuscript is unconditionally approved (option a), the editors initiate the process of text editing with the author(s). If the manuscript is conditionally approved (options b or c), the editors establish a reasonable term for the author(s) to make the corrections before the text editing process.

If the author(s) does not agree with the corrections required, or the manuscript’s rejection (option d), the author(s) may request a re-evaluation by providing a clear and comprehensive explanation of the dissensus. The editors will analyse the request and its justification before opening a new round of evaluation with other reviewers. Otherwise, the evaluation process is concluded. If the author(s) does not finish the corrections within the term established by the editors, the evaluation process is also concluded, and the manuscript will not be published.

Conflicting Interests

In case of conflicting interests, the reviewers should not accept evaluating the manuscript. They should declare to the editors if such a condition is identified and interrupt the evaluation immediately. This principle eliminates any kind of conflicting interests, such as: the reviewer is employed in the same institution as the author’s: the reviewer has supervised the author(s) in the last five years. The reviewer must also decline to produce a report if the manuscript been reviewed bears resemblance to a publication he or she has been preparing or is to be published soon.

Ethical Problem with a Submitted Manuscript

If an editor or a reviewer raises ethical concern about a submitted manuscript (such as those described in the journal’s Retraction Policy), the editors will follow COPE Guideline.

Plagiarism Policy

The journal does not support plagiarism, self-plagiarism (text recycling), and redundant (duplicate) publication.

Plagiarism means the presentation of ideas or work produced by other(s) by incorporating them into a publication without the proper acknowledgement. It may vary in degrees, from the unattributed use of large portions of text and/or data to the copying of short phrases only (e.g., a research paper or parts of a research paper published in a foreign language).

Self-plagiarism (or text recycling) means that sections of the same text appear (usually un-attributed) in more than one of an author’s own publications. If part of a previously published manuscript must be repeated, it is important to cite the original publication. In this case, the editors will consult the COPE Text Recycling Guidelines to evaluate if it can be reviewed and published.

Redundant (duplicate) publication means that there is repeated publication of data or ideas, often with at least one author in common.

All manuscripts submitted to the journal are inspected through a detection software (CopySpider and/or IThenticate). If plagiarism, self-plagiarism (text recycling), and redundant (duplicate) publication is identified, the editors will take actions following COPE Guidelines and will consider suspending the review process or retracting a publication (see Retraction Policy).

Retraction Policy

Revista Mundos do Trabalho’s Retraction Policy is inspired by the COPE Retraction Guidelines.

Editors will examine all claims made, whether it is a minor or a major problem in a publication. Whistle-blowers can demand it by sending a detailed e-mail to the journal’s Editor-in-Chief (see Contact). If the editors confirm the claims, they may consider requesting the author(s) to correct minor errors or mistakes, or they may considerer retracting the publication. Author(s) who publish in the journal must agree to correct possible errors or mistakes if and when asked.

The editors will consider retracting a publication if:

a) The author(s) refuse to correct the errors or mistakes asked by the editors.
b) There is clear evidence that the findings are unreliable, either as result of a major error or of fabrication (e.g., of data) or falsification (e.g., image manipulation).
c) It constitutes plagiarism, self-plagiarism or redundant publication.
d) The findings have previously been published elsewhere without proper attribution to previous sources or disclosure to the editor, permission to republish, or justification.
e) It contains material or data without authorisation for use.
f) Copyright has been infringed or there is some other serious legal issue (e.g., usage of images without permission).
g) It reports unethical research.
h) It has been published solely based on a compromised or manipulated peer review process.
i) The author(s) failed to disclose a major conflict of interest that, in the view of the editors, would have unduly affected interpretations of the work or recommendations by editors and peer reviewers.

The editors will not consider retraction a publication if:

a) The authorship is disputed but there is no reason to doubt the validity of the findings.
b) The main findings of the work are still reliable, and correction could sufficiently address errors or concerns.
c) Editors have inconclusive evidence to support retraction or are awaiting additional information such as from an institutional investigation.
d) Author conflicts of interest have been reported to the journal after publication, but in the editors’ view, these are not likely to have influenced interpretations or the conclusions of the article.

Notices of correction or retraction will:
a) Be linked to the retracted article.
b) Clearly identify the corrected or retracted article by citing it.
c) Be clearly identified as a correction or retraction.
d) Be published promptly to minimise harmful effects.
e) Be freely available to all readers.
f) State who is correcting or retracting the article.
g) State the reason(s) for correction or retraction.
h) Be objective, factual, and avoid inflammatory language.