Ethics guidelines
ETHICAL COMMITMENT FOR PUBLISHING ARTICLES
Although História - Revista da Faculdade de Letras is not associated with COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics), the editorial team adheres to the principles of the COPE Code of Conduct (https://publicationethics.org), which aims to establish a code of conduct for those involved in the management and publication of scientific research results: the Editorial Board, authors, and reviewers of scientific articles.
1. EDITORIAL BOARD
The Editorial Board of História - Revista da Faculdade de Letras must ensure its scientific quality, avoid incorrect practices in the publication of research results, and manage the publication of articles received within a reasonable timeframe.
This responsibility implies compliance with the following principles:
1.1. Impartiality
The Editorial Board must be impartial when dealing with articles proposed for publication and respect the intellectual independence of the authors, who must be granted the right to reply in the event of a negative evaluation.
Articles with negative research results should not be excluded.
1.2. Confidentiality
Board members are obliged to keep texts received and their content confidential until they are accepted for publication. Only then can their title and authorship be made public.
Likewise, no member of the Board or person involved in the evaluation process may use data, arguments, or interpretations contained in unpublished works for their research, except with the express written consent of the authors.
1.3. Review of works
The Board ensures that published research papers are reviewed by at least two experts in the field and that the review process has been fair and impartial.
Historia. Revista da Faculdade de Letras uses the double-blind procedure (anonymity of authors and reviewers). When one of the two evaluations is negative, a third report may be requested.
The Board will emphasize that the evaluation process will control the originality of the articles and detect plagiarism and redundant publications.
1.4. Acceptance or rejection of articles
Responsibility for accepting or rejecting an article for publication lies with the Editorial Board, which will base its judgment on the reports received on the article. These reports must base their opinion on the quality of the articles on their relevance, originality and clarity of presentation.
The Editorial Board may directly reject the articles received, without resorting to an external consultation process, if it considers them unsuitable for the journal because they do not meet the required level of quality, do not correspond to the scientific objectives of the journal, do not comply with the journal's standards or show signs of scientific fraud.
1.5 Withdrawal and notification of irregularities
The Editorial Board reserves the right to retract published works that are subsequently found to be unreliable as a result of unintentional errors, fraud, or scientific malpractice: fabrication, manipulation, or copying of data, plagiarism of texts and redundant or duplicate publication, omission of references to the sources consulted, use of the content without authorization or justification, etc. The aim behind retracting the article is to correct the scientific production that has already been published, guaranteeing its integrity.
If only part of the article contains an error, this can be rectified later through an editorial note or errata.
The journal reserves the right to publish a notice of retraction of a given article. The reasons for this action must be stated in the notice to distinguish bad practice from an unintentional error. The decision to retract an article should be taken as soon as possible so that the incorrect work is not cited in your field of research.
1.6. Application of the Editorial Board's rules
The editor of the journal is responsible for the correct application of the rules governing the functioning of the journal and must ensure that its members are aware of them.
1.7. Authorship rules
The rules for submitting manuscripts to the journal (regarding the length of the abstract and article, the preparation of images, the system of bibliographical references, etc.) are public and are available on the journal's website.
1.8. Conflict of interest
A conflict of interest arises when an article received by the journal is signed by a member of the Editorial Board, by someone who has a direct personal or professional relationship or is closely related to the member's past or present research. Anyone affected by one of these cases must refrain from intervening in the process of evaluating the proposed article.
2. AUTHORSHIP OF ARTICLES
The authors of texts submitted for publication in the journal are responsible for their content and are therefore obliged to apply an ethical standard designed to guarantee their originality and the correct attribution of authorship, among other aspects.
2.1. Publication rules
Texts submitted for publication must be the result of original, unpublished research. They must include the data obtained and used and an objective discussion of the results. Sufficient information must be provided so that any specialist can repeat the research carried out and confirm or refute the interpretations defended in the work.
Authors must adequately mention the origin of ideas or literal phrases taken from other published works, as indicated in the journal's regulations.
When images are included as part of the research, an adequate explanation of how they were created or obtained must be provided, whenever necessary for their understanding. In the case of using graphic material (figures, photographs, maps, etc.) that has been partially reproduced in other publications, the authors must cite the source and, if necessary, provide the corresponding reproduction authorizations.
Articles should not be unnecessarily fragmented. If the work is extensive, it can be published in several parts, each developing a particular aspect of the overall study. Related papers should be published in the same journal to make it easier for readers to interpret them.
2.2. Originality and plagiarism
Authors must guarantee that the data and results presented in the article are original and have not been copied, invented, distorted, or manipulated.
Plagiarism in all its forms, multiple or redundant publications, as well as the invention or manipulation of data, constitute a serious ethical offense and are considered scientific fraud.
Authors will not send original manuscripts previously submitted to another journal to the journal, nor will they send such manuscripts to another journal until they receive notification of their rejection or voluntarily withdraw them.
2.3. Authorship of the work
In the case of multiple authorship, all the people who sign the article share responsibility for the work submitted. Likewise, the author who submitted the article must ensure that the others have approved the final version of the article and given their approval for its possible publication.
Likewise, the contribution of other collaborators who are not listed as signatories or responsible for the final version of the article should be recognized in a note in the article, by way of thanks.
2.4. Sources of information
The text of the paper must recognize the publications that have influenced the research and must therefore identify and cite in the bibliography the original sources on which the information contained in the paper is based. It should not, however, include irrelevant citations or those that refer to similar examples, nor should it overuse references to established research.
The author must not use information obtained privately through conversation, correspondence, or discussion with colleagues in the field unless they have express written authorization from the source of the information and the information was received in the context of scientific advice.
2.5. Significant errors in published work
When an author discovers a serious error in their work, they are obliged to inform the journal as soon as possible to modify the article, withdraw it, or publish a correction or errata.
If the error is detected by any member of the editorial team, the author is obliged to prove that their work is correct.
The process for resolving these conflicts is described in section 1.5.
2.6. Conflict of interest
If any commercial, financial, or personal links could affect the results and conclusions of your work, the article must be accompanied by a statement attesting to this. All sources of funding for the study must also be indicated. This information will be included in the published version of the article.
3. REVIEWING PROCESS
The people involved in the reviewing process play an essential role in the process that guarantees the quality of the publication. They help the journal's bodies make editorial decisions and contribute to improving the articles.
3.1 Confidentiality
The reviewer must treat the work to be reviewed as a confidential document until it is published, both during and after the review process.
Under no circumstances should they disclose or use the information, details, arguments or interpretations contained in the text being reviewed for their benefit or that of a third party, or to the detriment of a third party.
3.2. Objectivity
The reviewer must objectively judge the quality of the work as a whole, i.e. including the information on which the working hypothesis is based, the theoretical and experimental data, and their interpretation, without neglecting the presentation and wording of the text.
You should specify your criticisms and be objective and constructive in your comments.
They must adequately argue their judgments, without adopting hostile positions and respecting the intellectual independence of the author of the work.
The reviewer should draw attention to any substantial similarities between the work submitted for review and another article already published or under review in another journal (redundant or duplicate publication). They should also draw attention to plagiarised, falsified, fabricated, or manipulated texts or data.
3.3. Feedback time
The reviewer must act quickly and deliver their report by the agreed deadline, letting the Editorial Board know of any delays.
They must also inform the Editorial Board as soon as possible if they do not consider themselves capable of assessing the work commissioned or if they are unable to complete the task within the agreed timeframe.
3.4. Recognising sources of information
Anyone carrying out an evaluation must check that relevant works already published on the subject are cited. To do this, they should review the bibliography included in the text, suggesting the elimination of superfluous or redundant references, or the incorporation of others that have not been cited.
3.5. Conflict of interest
The reviewer should refuse to review a piece of work when he or she has a professional or personal relationship with any of the people involved in its authorship that could affect his or her judgment of the work.
Conflicts of interest can also arise when the work to be analyzed is closely related to work being carried out at the time or to work that has already been published. In these cases, if in doubt, you should withdraw from the task and return the article to the journal, stating the reasons for your decision.
All the texts published are protected by Creative Commons - Atribuição 4.0 Internacional.
