Ethics and Plagiarism

 

PLAGIUM POLICY

Nativa Journal uses CopySpider's free plagiarism detection system (available for registration and download at https://copyspider.com.br/main/en/download), with a maximum similarity percentage of 3% (excluding references). We recommend to the authors a prior evaluation before the submission process. In this case, higher percentages (up to 10%) are allowed only when the manuscript is extracted from theses or dissertations of one of the authors. Once the similarity (including self-plagiarism) is detected, the manuscript will be returned to the authors with the analysis report, and later rejected and archived.

 

CODE OF ETHICS

This Code of Ethics aims to contribute to the quality of Nativa Journal to ensure its reliability to editors, authors, reviewers, and readers by encouraging the identification of bad practices, fraud, or possible ethical violations. Compliance with standards of ethical behavior is therefore expected from all parties involved: authors, editors, and reviewers. These instructions are based on the Good Practice Manual (ANPAD 2010), the Code of Conduct, and Best Practice Guidelines for Scientific Publication Editors of the Publications Ethics Committee (COPE 2011) and established scientific publication practices in the major journals of the scope areas of Nativa Journal.

 

Authors: Authors should present an objective discussion of the significance of the research work as well as sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the experiments. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable. Review articles should also be objective, comprehensive, and accurate accounts of the state of the art. The authors should ensure that their work is entirely original works, and if the work and/or words of others have been used, this has been appropriately acknowledged. Plagiarism in all its forms constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable.

 Authors should not submit articles describing essentially the same research to more than one journal. 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.

The Nativa Journal guarantees its isonomy regarding the bad conduct in the research since it understands that the author(s) is(are) responsible for the databases used in the preparation of manuscripts, and it is not for the editorial team to analyze whether there is a total or partial assignment. When notified of such occurrences, the Editorial Team of Nativa will provide information regarding the processing of the manuscript (if already published, the manuscript will be deleted and filed). It is also worth noting that the Editorial Team will collaborate, when requested, in intellectual property filch cases that require internal retraction in the institutions and/or judicial process.

 

Editors: Editors should strive to maintain the quality and relevance of the publication, including ensuring that the evaluation of submitted work is objective, fair, and conducted in accordance with the norms and standards of scientific research in the scope of the Nativa Journal. Editors, through the selection of reviewers, will seek to promote a competent and impartial evaluation of submitted articles. 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 submit submissions to reviewers with qualifications compatible with the work being evaluated (ANPAD, 2010). The editors of Revista Nativa have full responsibility and authority to reject/accept articles.

 The final decision to accept or reject the articles is up to the editors, who consider the quality, originality, relevance, and adherence to the editorial line of Revista Nativa. This decision may contradict the recommendations identified by the evaluators, provided they are duly substantiated. “The editor is not hostage to the opinions and viewpoints that arise, but if he has to fight them, he must act with a very clear ethic and vision” (ANPAD, 2010).
The editor should not have a conflict of interest regarding the articles he rejects/accepts.
If a conflict of interest is identified, the editor will pass responsibility for the decision to a member of the editorial committee who is free of such conflict. Publishers should only accept an article if they are reasonably certain about this decision. Publishers should post corrections when they encounter errors in the publication. Editors should preserve the anonymity of reviewers. Everyone involved in the evaluation process should ensure confidential treatment of submitted manuscripts. Publishers should not use or divert knowledge acquired during the article review process.

 

Reviewers: Reviewers should not review manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competition, collaboration, or other relationships or links with any of the authors, companies, or paper-related institutions, including the funding institutions involved in the manuscript. Reviewers should refuse to make assessments for which they do not feel qualified. They should agree to revise a manuscript only if: - they have adequate knowledge of the subject to perform a proper review; - can meet the deadline (Meeting the return date agreed upon is a matter of ethics, respect, and responsibility of the reviewer's role (ANPAD, 2010).

Reviewers should declare potential conflicts of interest (personal, financial, intellectual, professional, political, or religious) to the editorial staff of Revista Nativa to better align the evaluations.

As this is a double-blind review process, reviewers should inform the editor if the author's identity is known to them. Reviewers should not use or divert knowledge acquired during the article review process. Revised articles should be treated confidentially. Reviewers must respect the confidentiality of peer review and should not disclose any details of a manuscript or its review during or after the review process (COPE, 2010).

 

Consequences for violation of the Code of Ethics:

The Editorial Board of Nativa Journal is responsible for monitoring compliance with this code of ethics. In addition, you should be aware of changes in standards of scientific publication in the area of Administration. Guidelines for article removal (Based on COPE, 2010).

 Editors of Revista Nativa may consider retracting an article if: - there is clear evidence that the results are unreliable, either as a result of misconduct (eg data fabrication) or honest error (eg miscalculation), instruments/equipment - experimental error); - the findings were previously published elsewhere without appropriate references, permission, or justification (ie cases of redundant publication); - there is plagiarism or self-plagiarism; - the article reports unethical research.

 Disclaimer notices should state the reasons and grounds for the disclaimer (to distinguish cases of misconduct from honest errors) and should also specify who is portraying the article. If, after proper investigation, an item is found to be fraudulent, it should be removed from the journal system. The withdrawal must be clearly identifiable to readers and indexing systems. In this case, it should be published in the subsequent issue of the Journal, including the title of the article (and its identifiers), their respective authors, and problems encountered.

 

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