Code of Ethics
RED (Revista Electrónica de Direito) is a double-blind peer-reviewed journal committed to ensuring the highest standards of ethics in publication and quality of articles. Conformance to principles of publication ethics is expected of all parties involved in the act of publishing.
Editors, Authors and Reviewers are required, in particular, to abide by the following standards (based on the Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors of the Committee on Publication Ethics – COPE - available at http://publicationethics.org/):
Editors: Based on the review report of the referees, the editor can accept, reject, or request modifications to the manuscript. The editor must ensure that each manuscript is evaluated solely on the basis of academic merit and that information regarding manuscripts submitted by the authors is not disclosed to anyone other than the reviewers and other editorial advisers, as appropriate. The editor must not use unpublished information in the editor's own research without the express written consent of the author. Editors must take reasonable responsive measures when ethical complaints are presented concerning a submitted or published manuscript.
Authors: Authors should present an accurate account of their original research as well as an objective discussion of its significance. Authors must ensure that they have written entirely original works and that any work of others authors, or sources have been appropriately credited and referenced; plagiarism in all its forms is unacceptable. Authors should not submit the same manuscript simultaneously to more than one publication at a time. The corresponding author should ensure that there is a full consensus of all co-authors in approving the final version of the paper and its submission for publication.
Reviewers: Information regarding manuscripts submitted by authors should be kept confidential. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must not be used for personal advantage. If the selected referee feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript, he should excuse himself from the review process. If the reviewer feels he does not meet the conditions to complete the review of the manuscript within the stipulated time, this information must be communicated to the editor immediately. Reviews should be done objectively and observations should be formulated clearly with supporting arguments. Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have any conflicts of interest.
Editors, Authors and Reviewers are required, in particular, to abide by the following standards (based on the Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors of the Committee on Publication Ethics – COPE - available at http://publicationethics.org/):
Editors: Based on the review report of the referees, the editor can accept, reject, or request modifications to the manuscript. The editor must ensure that each manuscript is evaluated solely on the basis of academic merit and that information regarding manuscripts submitted by the authors is not disclosed to anyone other than the reviewers and other editorial advisers, as appropriate. The editor must not use unpublished information in the editor's own research without the express written consent of the author. Editors must take reasonable responsive measures when ethical complaints are presented concerning a submitted or published manuscript.
Authors: Authors should present an accurate account of their original research as well as an objective discussion of its significance. Authors must ensure that they have written entirely original works and that any work of others authors, or sources have been appropriately credited and referenced; plagiarism in all its forms is unacceptable. Authors should not submit the same manuscript simultaneously to more than one publication at a time. The corresponding author should ensure that there is a full consensus of all co-authors in approving the final version of the paper and its submission for publication.
Reviewers: Information regarding manuscripts submitted by authors should be kept confidential. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must not be used for personal advantage. If the selected referee feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript, he should excuse himself from the review process. If the reviewer feels he does not meet the conditions to complete the review of the manuscript within the stipulated time, this information must be communicated to the editor immediately. Reviews should be done objectively and observations should be formulated clearly with supporting arguments. Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have any conflicts of interest.