Code of Ethics

This Code of Ethics is intended to contribute to the quality of the RAUSP Management Journal, to ensure its reliability for editors, authors, reviewers and readers. The code is based on the ANPAD Manual of Good Practices (ANPAD 2010), the Code of Conduct and guidelines for best practice for Editors of Scientific publications of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE 2011), and the established practices of scientific publishing in the Administration area.

1. Questions concerning the Publication and Authorship

• List of references and funding

Authors should list and cite appropriately, in accordance with the instructions provided in a specific page, the works that formed the basis for the development of their research. Furthermore, they should provide information, if applicable, on the sources of research funding, as an acknowledgement at the end of the article or in a footnote at the beginning.

• Plagiarism and fraudulent data

The authors should state that the articles are their own work, and that any third party material used is referenced and used in a legitimate way. Plagiarism, falsification or fabrication of data will not be allowed.

• Publication of the same research in more than one journal

The authors should state that the articles submitted for evaluation and their essential content are original and are not under evaluation by another publication.

2. Authors’ responsibilities

• Authors must ensure that all data presented in the article are real and authentic;
• All authors must have contributed significantly to the development of the study;

The authors included in the article should have contributed significantly to the development of the work, and it is not permitted to include additional authors after acceptance of the article.

• All authors should provide, where necessary, corrections or retractions of mistakes;
• Authors must ensure that research, when appropriate, has passed the approval of the relevant body (e.g. the Ethics Committee on Research). (ANPAD, 2010);
• Authors may be invited to be evaluators in the journal’s peer review process;

If the authors are successful in publishing an article in RAUSP, they may be called to review an article for the magazine (ANPAD, 2010). If the authors are asked to act in this role, they must do so with dedication, promptness and scientific seriousness, thereby contributing to the improvement of the article.

3. The peer review process and Reviewer’ Responsibilities

Reviewers and their Responsibilities

• Reviewers should refuse to make assessments for which they do not feel qualified.

They should only agree to review a manuscript if they:

• possess adequate knowledge of the subject to conduct a proper review
• can meet the deadline
  • “Meeting the return date thus agreed is a question of ethics, respect and responsibility of the reviewer function.” (ANPAD, 2010).
• Reviewers should have no conflict of interest with the research, the authors and / or funders of research being assessed.
• Evaluators should declare potential conflicts of interest (personal, financial, intellectual, professional, political or religious) to the RAUSP editorial team to better align the assessments.
• As it is a double-blind review process, evaluators should inform the editor if the author’s identity is known to them.
• Evaluators should not use or misappropriate the knowledge acquired during the process of evaluating articles.
• The reviewed articles must be treated confidentially. Reviewers should respect the confidentiality of the peer review and should not disclose any details of a manuscript or its revision, during or after the evaluation process (COPE, 2010).

Reviews:

• Must be objective and constructive, refraining from hostility and avoiding personally defamatory or derogatory comments (COPE, 2011).
• The evaluator must indicate the flaws that can be corrected, indicating what should be done to that end. “The reviewer should always evaluate the cost-benefit of each requested change in terms of the effective improvement in the quality of the manuscript.” (ANPAD, 2010)
• Evaluators should suggest relevant references to studies that were not cited, where scientifically relevant to the article and / or its reformulation.
• Evaluators should seek to indicate any likely changes in the first revision of the article, avoiding new recommendations when the reworked item is returned.

4. Editorial responsibilities

The editors of RAUSP undertake wherever possible (based on COPE, 2011):

• to meet the needs of readers and authors;
• constantly improve the journal;
• ensure the quality of the material they publish;
• promote freedom of expression;
• maintain the integrity of academic record;
• preclude business needs from compromising the intellectual standards;
• publish corrections, clarifications, retractions and apologies when needed.

The editors will strive to maintain the quality and relevance of the publication, which includes ensuring that the evaluation of submitted papers is objective, fair and conducted in accordance with the norms and standards of scientific research in the field of ??Administration. The editors, through the selection of evaluators, will seek to promote a competent and impartial assessment of submitted articles.

The editors will seek reviewers who do not belong to the same institution as the authors and are not co-authors of the same. They will also seek to forward submissions to reviewers with qualifications compatible with the work to be assessed (ANPAD, 2010).

The editors of RAUSP have full responsibility and authority to reject / accept articles

The final decision to accept or reject articles rests with the publishers, who consider the quality, originality, relevance and adherence to RAUSP’s editorial line.

This decision may possibly counteract the recommendations identified by the evaluators, as long as it is duly substantiated. “The editor is not hostage to the opinions and views that come, but if he needs to counter them, he must act with a very clear ethics and insight.” (ANPAD, 2010)

The editor should have no conflict of interest in relation to articles he or she rejects / accepts.

If a conflict of interest is identified, the editor will pass the responsibility for the decision to a member of the editorial committee who is free of such a conflict.

The editors should only accept an article if they are reasonably certain about that decision.

Editors should publish corrections when they find some error in the publication.

Editors should preserve the anonymity of the evaluators

All those involved in the evaluation process must ensure the confidential treatment of submitted manuscripts.

Editors must not use or misappropriate the knowledge acquired during the evaluation process of the articles.

5. Issues of Ethics in Publishing

Monitoring / safeguarding of the publication’s ethics by the Editorial Board

The Editorial Board of RAUSP is responsible for monitoring compliance with this code of ethics. Furthermore, it should be aware of changes in patterns of scientific publishing in the area of ??Administration.

Guidelines for retraction of articles (Based on COPE, 2010)

The editors of RAUSP may consider the retraction of an article if:

• there is clear evidence that the results are not reliable, whether as a result of misconduct (e.g. data fabrication) or honest error (e.g. miscalculation or experimental error);
• the findings were published previously elsewhere without proper references, permission or justification (i.e. cases of redundant publication);
• there is plagiarism;
• the article reports unethical research.

Notices of retraction should mention the reasons and bases for retraction (to distinguish misconduct cases from those of honest mistakes) and should also specify who is retracting the article. They should be published in all versions of the journal (print and electronic) and should include the title of the article and its respective authors.

Maintaining the integrity of the academic record (Based on COPE, 2011)

Upon recognizing the publication of any misleading statement or distorted account, the Editorial Board must promptly correct it and give the correction due prominence in the journal.

If, after appropriate investigation, it is proved that an item is fraudulent, the latter should be retracted. The retraction must be clearly identifiable to readers and indexing systems.

References

ANPAD ANPAD Manual of Practice of Scientific Publication, National Association of Graduate Studies and Research in Management, Rio de Janeiro, 2010, available at http://www.anpad.org.br/diversos/boas_praticas.pdf, accessed 10/13/2013

COPE, CODE OF CONDUCT AND BEST PRACTICE GUIDELINES
JOURNAL FOR EDITORS, COPE Committee on Publication Ethics, available at http://publicationethics.org/files/Code_of_conduct_for_journal_editors_1.pdf, accessed on 13.10.2013