ETHICS AND MORAL VALUES

Ethical and moral values that guide the Revista de Estudos do Mar (REM)

The credibility and success of a scientific journal largely depends on the prior evaluation system, contributing decisively to attracting good authors and improving the quality of knowledge to be disseminated. In the case of REM, the evaluation procedure is ensured by the process called scientific arbitration or peer review. In order to ensure the transparency of this process and generate a relationship of trust between editors and authors, REM adopts the following ethical and moral principles:

1. Justice in the treatment and appreatiation of manuscrits

Reviewers are required to carefully review all manuscripts and be free from any bias. The report must highlight the aspects that support the decision, and in the event of an unfavorable opinion to the publication of the manuscript, it will be rejected, highlighting the weaknesses of the text and suggesting ways to fill them in future submissions. Author(s) are allowed to appeal an unfavorable opinion to the publication to the editor-in-chief or to the director, presenting their arguments. To ensure equity and fairness, internal audits of the reviewers' reports are planned, regardless of whether or not there are resources. In this context, additional clarifications may be requested from the reviewers, even in favorable decisions.

2. Freedom of appreciation of the content of the manuscripts

REM has a unique commitment to knowledge, being independent of politics and economics. The editorial statute only defines the scope and field of activity of the journal, but REM is a publication uncommitted and open to innovating in relation to established scientific paradigms.

3. Competence and adequacy of reviewers

Reviewers are chosen on the basis of their academic training, experience and professional competence, which, as a whole, demonstrate the ability to review submitted manuscripts. Despite a prior selection of reviewers, they can always decline the invitation to review the manuscript if they feel, for some reason, unable to review the text.

4. Identification of reviewers as a factor of transparency in the review process

Authors may, if they so wish, know who the reviewers of their work were. Subsequently, they can assess the competence of the reviewers and, if possible, the existence of conflicts of interest that may affect the evaluation.

5. Review within the previously established deadlines

REM seeks to scrupulously comply with publication deadlines. In this sense, it seeks to obtain from its reviewers a commitment to meeting the review deadlines. Annually, REM analyzes the average review deadlines and, in the future, intends to disclose the review time in the article itself.

6. Issuing constructive opinions

At REM, we adopt a policy of constructive criticism. Reviewers must provide the editors with elements for the decision to accept or reject the manuscripts, leaving the decision to the editors. Reviews should contribute to increasing the quality of publications, helping to qualitatively differentiate REM.

7. Article Retraction

e³ values research integrity and strives to maintain high standards of ethical conduct and quality in all its publications. We recognize that, in some circumstances, it may be necessary to reconsider the publication of an article that was previously accepted and published. Article retraction is a serious measure and is handled with utmost diligence to uphold the integrity of scientific literature.

7.1. Conditions for Retraction:

The retraction of an article may be considered in situations that include, but are not limited to, substantial error, plagiarism, data manipulation, research ethics violations, or other serious irregularities that compromise the validity and reliability of the article.

7.2. Retraction Procedure:

When a retraction request is received or when serious issues are identified in a published article, e³ will conduct a careful assessment of the situation. This will involve analyzing the presented evidence, consulting with relevant experts, and considering the policies and guidelines established by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and other relevant organizations.

7.3. Transparent Process:

The decision to retract an article is communicated transparently to all parties involved, including the authors of the article, reviewers, members of the Scientific Board, and readers. The specific reason for retraction will be thoroughly explained, and all stakeholders will be informed about the steps taken to ensure the correctness and transparency of the process.

7.4. Corrections and Amendments:

In some cases, minor errors or issues that do not compromise the overall validity of the article can be corrected through amendments or retractions. These corrections will be clearly communicated to the reader, maintaining transparency and honesty in the scientific record.

The REM's Good Practices include:

1. promoting ethical conduct in research and publication and actively works to maintain the integrity of its journal;
2. addressing any concerns regarding the integrity of published articles with the seriousness and responsibility required to ensure the continued trust of our readers and authors.