Publication Ethics

PUBLICATION ETHICS

SAB's REVISTA DE ARQUEOLOGIA

 

Revista de Arqueologia adheres to the Code of Conduct and Good Practices defined by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and the Code of Ethics of the Brazilian Society of Archeology (SAB), with the purpose of defining good and bad publication practices. In complying with it, we ensure the highest standards of editorial ethics, paying attention to the needs of readers, authors and reviewers, guaranteeing the quality of published works and the transparency of the editorial flow. All parties involved in the act of publication [editors, authors, reviewers and readers] must comply with the ethical parameters defined in this code, which aim to respect the content and integrity of the submitted manuscripts.

 

Allegations of misconduct, complaints and appeals

 

The Journal makes it clear that in the event of pre-publication and post-publication malpractice allegations, regardless of how they were brought to the attention of the journal or the editorial board, measures will be taken to analyze, correct or retract them. Corrections and retractions will follow the procedures set forth by the “Retraction Guidelines”, from COPE, in which authors and readers can send complaints to the e-mail revistadearqueologia@gmail.com, so that the editors take the necessary measures. We emphasize that all allegations will be treated seriously and in the event of a complaint made against any member of the editorial board (editorial council or editors) or against the entire editorial board, they will be prevented from participating in the investigation and the complaint will be evaluated by the Ethics Commission of SAB.

By pre-publication and post-publication misconduct, we understand aspects such as those cited by the Council of Science Editors, and among these, we highlight: falsification (alteration/distortion) or the fabrication of data and images; the partial or total copy of a text, unauthorized or not referenced, characterized as plagiarism; authorship in publications without effective contribution to the text or omission of authors who contributed to the development of the work.

 

Authorship and Contribution

 

The Journal reinforces the need for transparency about who contributed to the work and the role they played in its realization, following the criteria determined at https://www.elsevier.com/authors/policies-and-guidelines/credit-author-statement. Thus, at the time of submission, the participation of each author must be informed according to the categories: 1) Project management; 2) Formal analysis; 3) Acquisition of financing; 4) Conceptualization; 5) Data curation; 6) Writing - original draft; 7) Writing - proofreading and editing; 8) Research; 9) Methodology; 10) Resources; 11) Software; 12) Supervision; 13) Validation; 14) Visualization. The authors may have contributed in several categories. It is up to the author who sent the manuscript to ensure that the descriptions are accurate and agreed upon by the other participants in the work. In case of lawsuits about potential disputes about “Authorship and Contribution”, the procedures informed in the topic “Allegations of misconduct” will be followed. For conceptualization purposes, authorship of the publications is considered to be the direct intellectual contribution to the conception and writing of the work, according to principles defined by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

 

Conflict of interest / concurrent interests

 

In cases of possible conflict of interest, the authors may inform the editor, at the time of submission of the manuscript, in the field entitled “Comments for the editor”, any information they deem important for the maintenance of the editorial process' suitability. If editors and invited reviewers verify the existence of conflict of interest in relation to the text to be analyzed, they must refuse to participate in the manuscript evaluation process as stated in the submitted review form. We understand by conflict of interest the following aspects: the existence of family relations¹ with any of the co-authors; the existence of supervisory, guidance or co-supervision relationships with any of the co-authors and the existence of any type of collaboration between the reviewer and the research that is the object of the proposal. The journal follows the guidelines proposed by COPE to guide decisions in cases of this nature (https://publicationethics.org/guidance/Flowcharts).

 

Data and reproducibility

 

The journal defines as a policy that information about the research methods, materials and data (explicitly informed in the text) be made available to any researcher who wishes to reproduce or replicate the procedures. Thus, it is important that the data used in the design and implementation of the research are cited throughout the text and mentioned in the bibliographical references.

Thus, it is suggested that public repositories, program codes, scripts used in statistics and other documentation that may be used during the research be informed in the text, so that their procedures can be reproduced in the future. It is also recommended that digital repositories be mentioned in the text and in bibliographical references. In such cases, it is advisable to use reliable repositories, which adhere to policies that make data detectable, accessible, usable and long-term preserved, and that also assign unique and persistent identifiers. Repositories and websites maintained by authors will also be considered as long as they are publicly accessible.

In exceptional scenarios in which information about data or materials cannot be shared for legal or ethical reasons, it is up to the authors to inform this limitation at the time of submission. In this situation, the journal recommends that the data be shared with the journal, however, they will not be made publicly available or their use will be authorized under restrictions, protecting confidential and proprietary information. Each case will be evaluated by the journal's editorial board.

We recommend that, before submission, the authors verify that the article has general alignments with the protocols available at http://www.equator-network.org/ and that they use the most relevant ones for the applications of the reported research.

 

Ethical supervision

 

As defined in the Code of Ethics of the Brazilian Society of Archeology, works submitted to the journal must consider the political, economic, social, cultural and environmental impact of knowledge and archaeological research in the areas of study, respecting cultural, political and social norms, as well as the dignity of the collectives in the areas where research is carried out, in all stages of archaeological work.

In this sense, it is imperative that research involving vulnerable populations and human beings, in general, have their consent and authorization for publication.

Specifically with regard to indigenous peoples, quilombolas and other traditional communities, the authors must comply with the guidelines of Convention 169 of the International Labor Organization and the SAB Code of Ethics.

In the case of research with animals, the principle of minimizing use, suppressing pain, and avoiding their suffering and stress is assumed to be indispensable.

The situations mentioned above will be supervised by the editorial board of the journal, which also guarantees that confidential data informed by the authors at the time of submission of manuscripts associated with this topic will not be disclosed for any purpose or used for marketing practices.

 

Intellectual property

 

Bearing in mind that the SAB's Revista de Arqueologia a free scientific publication in all its stages, with no charges for submission or access for authors and readers, we assume that the articles published in it can be reproduced (in full or in part ) by any means and distributed, including figures, photos and translations; as long as the authors of the original submission are credited and no changes are made to the text or its imagery content.

The authors own the copyright of their texts and are legally responsible for their content; however, they license the journal to reproduce and distribute the article and its images.

As an open access journal, the SAB's Revista de Arqueologia allows the free download and sharing of published works, however, it is imperative that credit be attributed to the authors and that no changes are made in any way.

Papers that fit into the following categories are accepted by the journal: Articles, Essays, Translations, Research Notes, Abstracts, Reviews and Interviews. Abstracts of dissertations or theses. Articles derived from theses and dissertations may be published provided that reference is made to the original academic work and provided that they are positively evaluated by the reviewers. In cases of translations, previously published works will be accepted provided that the authors inform that it is a translation at the time of submission, also sending a permission from the original editor and/or the authors of the translated text, clearly referring to the work that originated the translation. The other categories of papers must be original, that is, they cannot have been published, printed or submitted to other journals.

According to their categories, in the first stage of analysis by the editors, the texts previously received and approved by the Editorial Board are examined using the Plagius Professional software, in order to identify and curb possible practices of plagiarism. By plagiarism we understand the criminal practice of copying, both integrally (when an entire text is copied) and partially (when only parts of a text are copied), works by other authors without giving them their due credit through citations and references. In addition, we also understand that self-plagiarism (when an author re-publishes - fully or partially - one of their previous texts) violates the ethics and good practices of scientific publication and is frowned upon by the Revista de Arqueologia.

 

Journal management

 

The Journal's Editorial Board is made up of members who are elected every two years by the Brazilian Archeology Society, which is also responsible for financing the journal, through the annuity paid by its members. Due to SAB's financial support, the Journal has consolidated itself as an open access, free and quality publication.

Its management is the responsibility of the elected editors, who rely on the professional assistance of technical support companies (responsible for the operation, maintenance, security and technical support of the system) and editorial support (revision of Portuguese, English and Spanish, Standardization, Layout, D.O.I. registration and online publication of the volumes). Bearing in mind that the management of SAB's Revista de Arqueologia changes biennially, based on voting, it has become a policy of the journal, whenever possible, to keep one of the editors from the previous management so that they can provide training to other members of the new management. The person chosen to remain on the team must be accepted by the new management and be submitted to the voting process like the other members. It is recommended that this editor does not remain for more than two consecutive managements. When it is not possible to retain a member of the previous management, the latter is responsible for training the new management as soon as they assume their mandate.

The entire editorial process is carried out through the Open Journal Systems (OJS), developed by the Public Knowledge Project (PKP), which promotes public access to published works, better management of the journal's editorial flow, guaranteeing the efficiency and transparency of the editorial process, optimizing the sending and receiving of submissions and reviewers' feedbacks. 

All texts and volumes published in the Journal are identified with the Digital Object Identifier (D.O.I.), a standard, unique and exclusive alphanumeric code that creates a permanent link to a digital document.

 

Peer review process

 

Submissions are evaluated for their quality and there is no discrimination of any kind based on race, ethnicity, gender or background. The peer review process is carried out entirely online, through the OJS, ensuring its transparency and recording of all stages. The evaluation follows the double-blind peer review system, in which, for each article, at least two expert reviewers in the area/topic of the submission are indicated by the editorial board. The names of the reviewers are not informed to the authors and the names of the authors are not informed to the reviwers, and all information that can help identify the authors of the submission (including digital metadata) is removed from the files to which the reviewers have access. The feedbacks sent are analyzed by the Editorial Board and are used as a basis for the final decision regarding the approval or disapproval of the texts. It is emphasized that the final decision rests with the editors, based on the feedbacks sent.

The analysis of the articles by the reviewers has as parameter criteria clearly established by the Editorial Board and explained in the analysis form available in the OJS. The following aspects are taken into account: technical-scientific relevance for the theme addressed in the work; consistent and updated theoretical foundation; adequacy of the abstract to the central theme and conclusions of the work; support and logical organization of the discussions presented; methodological adequacy of the research; tables, illustrations and explanatory captions consistent with the work and its theme; updated bibliography, relevant and in accordance with the journal's editorial standards; grammatical adequacy, coherence and organization of ideas in the composition of the work. Based on these criteria, the reviewer determines if the article needs to undergo revision, and informs their general evaluation about it (Excellent, Good or Reasonable) presenting a justification for their decision. Optionally and additionally, comments can be sent in the author's manuscript, and in this case, all information (including metadata) that can identify the reviewer is deleted from the revised file before it is forwarded to the author.

The evaluation process takes place within 6 months after sending the manuscripts, which are reviewed in the order they are received, with no preference, discrimination or differentiation. In this way, researchers who are specialists in the subject of the work and who do not have a conflict of interest with the authors are preferably chosen as reviewers. It is important to highlight that when accepting the review request, the reviewer must explicitly indicate that there is no conflict of interest to proceed with the text analysis. Ensuring the veracity of this information is the sole responsibility of the reviewer, but in the event of false statements being found, the Editorial Board is responsible for invalidating and disregarding any feedbacks issued.

In the event of appeals and disputes associated with the existence of an undisclosed conflict of interest between authors, reviewers and editors, complaints can be sent to the e-mail revistadearqueologia@gmail.com, so that the editors take the necessary measures. If the complaint involves any member of the editorial board (editorial council or editors), they will be prevented from participating in the investigation of the case. And in case of complaint made against the journal and the entire editorial board, this will be analyzed by the Ethics Commission of SAB.

 

Authorship of articles made by editors

 

Due to the transparency of the editorial flow, the Journal has as an editorial policy not to accept submissions that have active members of the Editorial Board among their authors, while they are in the management of the journal.

 

Post-Publication discussions and corrections

 

The Journal accepts publications of articles whose purpose is to carry out the debate of articles already published. In the case of “response articles”, these must be sent to the editors along with a letter informing that it is a response, criticism, complementation or other type of debate on a previously published text. The journal's Editorial Board will analyze the content of the material sent and decide on its pertinence. Articles that are characterized by responses and replicas to publications already made, in addition to undergoing the initial analysis of the Board regarding their relevance,  will also be submitted to the journal's standard double-blind peer review process. The articles will be published in subsequent volumes to the one under debate, however, mentions will be created that allow the link between the texts of different volumes.

Furthermore, after publication of a volume, the journal accepts requests for corrections, revisions and retractions. The mechanisms involved in this process include sending an e-mail to the journal, addressed to the editors, with an explanation of the problem, from which the Editorial Board will analyze the request sent. If the request for correction, revision or retraction involves specific criticisms of the editorial board, or any of its members, the demand will be forwarded to SAB's directors to be evaluated by the Society's Ethics Council, without the participation of this Editorial Board.

It is also part of the editorial practice to republish articles that have received many citations according to the statistical metrics available in virtual mechanisms that control such data. In these cases, the authors are consulted by the journal's Editorial Board about the intention to publish the manuscript and, in case of acceptance, they will be invited to make additional comments to the text, in the form of a new article, containing  a mapping of all academic production on the subject addressed (reporting advances and challenges) since the text was originally published.

 

¹We understand by kinship as being up to the second degree in a direct or collateral line.