PUBLICATION ETHICS AND PUBLICATION MALPRACTICE STATEMENT

Authors should observe high standards concerning publication ethics as set out by the Commission on Publication Ethics (COPE). Falsification or fabrication of data, plagiarism, including duplicate publication of the authors’ work without proper citation, and misappropriation of the work are all unacceptable practices. Any cases of ethical misconduct are treated very seriously and will be dealt with following the COPE guidelines.

The Journal of Law, Public Policies, and Human Sciences employs a fully peer-review process where both reviewers and authors remain anonymous throughout the review process. All articles submitted for publication undergo an initial editorial screening and, when a submission is considered appropriate, under the editorial policies and with a minimum quality level, it is sent to two reviewers. The reviewers will not know the identity of the authors, as any identifying information will be stripped from the document before review.

Once an author submits a paper, the Editor(s) checks the paper’s composition and arrangement against the Journal’s submission guidelines. In particular, we review the presence of required sections and stylizations; that the article is within the scope of the Journal; and that it is sufficiently original and topical. If not, the paper may be rejected without being reviewed any further. A designated editor in chief will take care of the review process from this point onwards. The designated Editor in chief assigns at least two Referees for manuscript review according to their expertise. The referees shall be experts in the given field and, if possible, they should not be institutionally or personally associated with the author. Referees are asked to evaluate the manuscript and provide constructive anonymised comments for the author. The paper is double-blind reviewed and recommendation sent to Editor.

There is a zero-tolerance policy towards plagiarism in our Journal. Articles are screened for plagiarism before, during, and after publication, and if found, they will be rejected at any stage of processing.

Also, there is a zero-tolerance policy for fake references. All references will be checked before, during, and after publication, and if found, they will be rejected at any stage of processing.

ETHICS COMMITTEE APPROVAL ON RESEARCH WITH HUMAN

Research on human participants, which includes identifiable human material or identifiable data, requires ethical protection. According to the Declaration of Helsinki issued by the World Medical Association, research on human participants should be formulated in experimental protocols, and these should be submitted to independent ethical review boards (ethics committees and institutional review boards) for approval. Additionally, every potential participant should be informed about the “aims, methods, sources of funding, any possible conflicts of interest, institutional affiliations of the researcher, the anticipated benefits and potential risks of the study and the discomfort it may entail” and should give consent to participate.

Source: S Schroter, R Plowman, A Hutchings, A Gonzalez; Reporting ethics committee approval and patient consent by study design in five general medical journals. J Med Ethics 2006; 32:718–723. DOI: 10.1136/jme.2005.015115.

It is mandatory reporting of ethics committee approval and patient consent by study design. Ethical approval, name of approving committee, type of consent, data source, and whether the study used data collected as part of a study reported elsewhere were recorded. Authors are required to describe in their manuscripts ethical approval from an appropriate committee and how the participants consented to the study if they have signed any document in which the research and its outcomes are clearly and well explained, how the researches will use all data and, if the case, the number of the ethics committee approval from the UNIVERSITY.

In case the University in which the study was carried out does not demand any official document, the authors have to explain that and say that all participants have agreed to participate in this study.

Authors are required to describe in their manuscripts ethics committee approval and participants consent by study design from participants when research involves human participants.

Ethics approval must be sought for research involving human participants.

A 'participant' is someone who:
• It actively provides research data. For example:
• Completes surveys
• Participates in interviews, discussions or observations
• Undergoes psychological, physiological or medical treatment or testing
• tests software
• Grants access to personal collections of records, photographs.
• Is the person from whom tissue has been collected (including blood, urine, saliva, hair)
• Is identified in a record, e.g., employment record, medical record, education record, membership list, electoral roll or
• Is identified or de-identified in data banks or unpublished human research data, e.g., analysis of existing unpublished data collected by another researcher or collected for a different research project.

Source: https://www.newcastle.edu.au/research-and-innovation/resources/human-ethics/what-needs-ethics-approval, accessed on November 23rd, 2019

Authors are required to describe in their manuscripts the Animal Ethics Committee approval when the study is carried out using animals.

Animal Ethics Committees (A.E.C.s) provide avenues for public participation in the regulation of animal research. A.E.C.s are responsible for approving and monitoring research within Accredited Animal Research Establishments, including carrying out inspections of animals and facilities.

No animal research may be carried out without A.E.C. approval. A.E.C.s must consider and evaluate applications to conduct research on the basis of the researchers’ responses to a comprehensive set of questions, including their justification for the research, its likely impact on the animals, and procedures for preventing or alleviating pain and distress.

On behalf of the establishment, A.E.C.s have the power to stop inappropriate research and to discipline researchers by withdrawing their research approvals. They can require that adequate care, including emergency care, is provided for animals. They also provide guidance and support to researchers on matters relevant to animal welfare, through means such as the preparation of guidelines and dissemination of relevant scientific literature. A.E.C.s are responsible for advising establishments on the changes to physical facilities that should be made to provide for the needs of the animals used.

Editors' responsibilities

Contribution to editorial decisions
The peer-reviewing process assists the editor and the editorial board in making editorial decisions and may also serve the author in improving the paper.
Promptness
Any selected referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the editor and withdraw from the review process.
Confidentiality
Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be disclosed to or discussed with others except as authorized by the editor.
Standards of objectivity
Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Referees should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.
Acknowledgement of sources
Reviewers should identify cases in which relevant published work referred to in the paper has not been cited in the reference section. They should point out whether observations or arguments derived from other publications are accompanied by the respective source. Reviewers will notify the editor of any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge.
Disclosure and conflict of interest
Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions associated with the papers.

Reporting standards
Authors of original research reports should present an accurate account of the work performed as well as an objective discussion of its significance. Underlying data should be represented accurately in the paper. A paper should contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable.
Data access and retention
Authors could be asked to provide the raw data of their study together with the paper for editorial review and should be prepared to make the data publicly available if practicable. In any event, authors should ensure accessibility of such data to other competent professionals for at least ten years after publication (preferably via an institutional or subject-based data repository or other data center), provided that the confidentiality of the participants can be protected and legal rights concerning proprietary data do not preclude their release.
Originality, plagiarism, and acknowledgement of sources
Authors will submit only entirely original works, and will appropriately cite or quote the work and/or words of others. Publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work should also be cited.
Multiple, redundant or concurrent publication
In general, papers describing essentially the same research should not be published in more than one journal. Submitting the same paper to more than one journal constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable.
Manuscripts which have been published as copyrighted material elsewhere cannot be submitted. In addition, manuscripts under review by the journal should not be resubmitted to copyrighted publications. However, by submitting a manuscript, the author(s) retain the rights to the published material. In case of publication, they permit the use of their work under a CC-BY license [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/], which allows others to copy, distribute and transmit the work as well as to adapt the work and to make commercial use of it.
Authorship of the paper
Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the reported study. All those who have made significant contributions should be listed as co-authors.
The corresponding author ensures that all contributing co-authors and no uninvolved persons are included in the author list. The corresponding author will also verify that all co-authors have approved the final version of the paper and have agreed to its submission for publication.
Disclosure and conflicts of interest
All authors should include a statement disclosing any financial or other substantive conflicts of interest that may be construed to influence the results or interpretation of their manuscript. All sources of financial support for the project should be disclosed.
Fundamental errors in published works
When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in his/her own published work, it is the author’s obligation to promptly notify the journal editor or publisher and to cooperate with the editor to retract or correct the paper in the form of an erratum.

Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). (2011, March 7). Code of Conduct and Best-Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors. Retrieved from http://publicationethics.org/files/Code_of_conduct_for_journal_editors_Mar11.pdf

https://www.psychopen.eu/fileadmin/user_upload/documents/guidelines/publication_ethics_and_publication_malpractice_statement.pdf

We are continually trying to improve our performance when it comes to providing our authors with quality service. We attach great importance to providing authors with easy access to any information they might need about our publications and services.

• jlpphs@gmail.com
• +55(54) 98405-5875. De Boni
• +55(51) 99919-9758. Goldani
• 359/603, Anita Garibaldi Street.
  District: Mon't Serrat. Postal Code: 90450-001.
  Porto Alegre - RS. Brazil