Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement
Policies of obedience and promotion of ethics in scientific communication
The main editorial policies of RAC regarding ethics are described below to promote/discuss: (a) integrity and transparency in the manuscript evaluation process; (b) integrity and transparency in the reproducibility of the research; (c) concepts and actions that promote integrity in the publication process; (d) the occurrence of manipulation or invention of data (e) the unreferenced copy of data or the text of another author; (f) duplication of publication of the same text or research; (g) conflicts of interest or authorship; (h) referrals in cases of suspicion or evidence of misconduct; (i) open science.
EVALUATION SYSTEM - SUBMISSION ANALYSIS
Theoretical-empirical Articles, Theoretical Essays, Methodological Articles, Provocations, Technological Articles, and Cases for Teaching in Administration: The evaluation goes through a review system in which the first reading (desk-review) is exclusively intended to assess the relevance of the submitted articles, their adequacy to the scope of the journal and aspects such as contribution and originality of the text (Theoretical-empirical Articles, Theoretical Essays, Provocations, Methodological Articles), dilemma and quality of teaching notes (Teaching Cases) and quality of applicability (Methodological Articles). Only the papers considered by editors and reviewers as relevant for the community and, in particular, for the journal's readers, will proceed to the other stages of evaluation. Once approved at this stage, the paper proceeds to peer review, adopting the double-blind review format.
Executive Letters: The submitted documents are analyzed by the Editor-in-Chief and by Associate and/or invited Editors, in accordance with the journal's editorial policy, without external evaluation.
In the double-blind peer review stage, the anonymized files will be sent to at least two reviewers with experience related to the theme of the article. Reviewers will provide reports on the article, typically within 12 weeks. If reviewers do not provide consistent responses, the editors will either send the article to a third reviewer or make a decision based on the reviewers' reports. The journal will notify the authors of its decision to accept or reject the article. Acceptance of articles generally depends on making changes in accordance with the reviewer's and editorâ€™s comments. After acceptance, the article will be submitted to grammar review, APA Style formatting, typesetting, published in Early Access, and then published in one volume and issue.
RAC, in line with Open Science practices, in January/2020 started to encourage reviewers to join the Open Peer Review, in which the journal publishes, on the title page of each article, information about the editors and reviewers who contributed to the peer review process for each article. After the article they reviewed is accepted for publication, reviewers and editors are invited to authorize to reveal their identities. Since August/2020, RAC fosters the practice of report's sharing (Open Reports).
As of August 07, 2020, new submissions for RAC must comply with the following policies for Open Peer Review.
Following COPEâ€™s recommendations, (which RAC is a member of, and subscribes to the principles of the Committee on Publication Ethics) CSE's advice, DORA's principles, and under RACâ€™s policies, we think peer review is fundamental to the efficacy of the scientific process (Bispo, 2018; Mendes-Da-Silva, 2018). According to Berk, Harvey, and Hirshleifer (2016), the job of the referee is to provide expert and unambiguous advice to the editor about whether or not a paper is publishable. The referee advises and the editor decides. In the case of a recommendation to resubmission, the referee should notify the editor about any changes that the reviewer believes are needed to make the paper publishable.
Refereesâ€™ Misconduct will be properly assessed by RAC, according to the item â€śReferee misconductâ€ť under the section â€śMisconduct, Manipulation, Correction, and Retraction Policiesâ€ť.
Referee's Conflicts of Interest
If you have any conflict of interest with the manuscript, you need to alert the RACâ€™s Editor â€“ promptly, and before agreeing to accept the assignment. The Editor might decide to find a new referee or might ask you to complete the report.
Conflicts that require alerting the Editor include when an author of the paper is: a past, current, or planned coauthor, a current colleague, a former student or advisor, a close personal friend or family member, or has a financial relationship with the reviewer. Conflicts can also arise if you have current research that is competing with the research in the submitted paper. If the paper contradicts or corrects your research, you need to tell the RACâ€™s Editor. Also, if there have been disputes between you and one of the authors in the past, alert the Editor.
At the Journal of Contemporary Administration (Revista de AdministraĂ§ĂŁo ContemporĂ˘nea, RAC), we receive more than 400 manuscripts per year for publication in our journal. Unfortunately, a small percentage fails to meet our ethics guidelines and even some of those cases are suspected of plagiarism. RAC regards plagiarism as a very serious offense. It is an illegal form of copying. RAC is a member of, and subscribes to the principles of the Committee on Publication Ethics, COPE, following its advice. Plagiarism is defined as the unacknowledged use of the work of others as if this were your own original work.
Examples of plagiarism:
- Copying and pasting from the Internet and posting somewhere else without proper citation.
- Putting your name on another personâ€™s essay or project.
- Copying exact wording from another personâ€™s text.
- Using another personâ€™s photo, diagram, tables, sounds, or ideas without proper citation.
- Presenting research in your own words without providing references
- Purchasing another personâ€™s text and using it as your own.
- Present ideas in the same format and order as your research source.
By submitting a paper for publication to this journal, the author(s) certify that:
- I/We are fully aware that plagiarism is wrong.
- I/We know that plagiarism is the use of another personâ€™s idea or published work and pretending that it is oneâ€™s own.
- I/ We declare that each contribution to my project from the work(s) of other peoples' published works or unpublished sources have been acknowledged and source of information have been referenced.
- I/We certify that I/we are solely responsible for any incomplete reference that may remain in my/our work.
I have read and understood the RAC policy on plagiarism. I hereby declare that this piece of the manuscript is the result of my own independent scholarly work and that in all cases material from the work of others (in books, articles, essays, dissertations, and on the internet) is acknowledged, and quotations and paraphrases are clearly indicated. No material other than that listed has been used. This written work has not previously or not yet been published.
Tips for Avoiding Plagiarism:
- Learn the citation expectations for each course.
- When you take notes for a paper, be sure to cite sources so you donâ€™t get mixed up later.
- When you research online, be sure to find the original source of the information, since it is possible that websites plagiarize.
- If you are really worried, ask your professor if you can submit a rough draft so they can check your citations.
- When in doubt, authors must cite. It is better to have too many citations than few.
To help address and prevent plagiarism, RAC incorporates iThenticate into its editorial workflows. The main features of iThenticate are i) prevent plagiarism by detecting textual similarities which could indicate misconduct; and ii) compare full-text manuscripts against a database with millions of articles, thousands of journals, books from hundreds of publishers, and billion web pages. The main function of iThenticate is to identify the textual overlap of a manuscript against a database of published works and internet sources.
The U.S. Office of Research Integrity defines research falsification as â€śmanipulating research materials, equipment, or processes, or changing or omitting data or results such that the research is not accurately represented in the research record.â€ť Data fabrication, on the other hand, refers to "making up" of entire sets of data or results and recording or reporting them as genuine findings. It is worth noting that inaccuracies in data and reported findings are more commonly the result of honest mistakes on the part of the authors â€“ mistakes do happen! With this in mind, it is important to investigate any allegations made against authors to ascertain whether or not this is the result of research misconduct, or whether this is simply a genuine oversight.
You can certainly ask your coworker for clarification without accusing him of altering the original data. If you are worried that he/she will feel accused in any case, this would also be a question for your mutual advisor, since he/she might be in the best position to judge whether the explanation is appropriate <https://www.aps.org/programs/education/ethics/publication/fabrication-discussion.cfm>.
The concern with falsification and fabrication has been a worldwide trend, as highlighted by Resnik (2014). Mistakes can certainly occur in drafting a paper, and itâ€™s unwise to make accusations before knowing the full story. If you have questions, as a coauthor of the paper, it is reasonable for you to be satisfied that the revised paper is complete and accurate.
For these reasons, the Journal of Contemporary Administration (Revista de AdministraĂ§ĂŁo ContemporĂ˘nea, RAC) assumes that research misconduct means fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism in proposing, performing, or reviewing research, or in reporting research results.
- Fabrication is making up data or results and recording or reporting them.
- Falsification is manipulating research materials, equipment, or processes, or changing or omitting data or results such that the research is not accurately represented in the research record.
- Plagiarism is the appropriation of another person's ideas, processes, results, or words without giving appropriate credit.
- Research misconduct does not include honest errors or differences of opinion.
And, to address potentially related problems, RAC adopts as a policy:
â€˘ Open data and materials: Since issue 22(4) of 2018, RAC, in line with Open Science practices, has strongly encouraged the publication of data and open materials, as a way of collaborating to maintain the ethical standards adopted in the research whose results will be published in this journal.
â€˘ Authors who choose not to share data as add-ins to their work are required by RAC to add a clarifying note of why they took this action (not sharing data via repository).
In case of RAC receives any claim of data fabrication or falsification of work under evaluation, the peer review process is put on hold whilst the issue is investigated. If the allegation appears to be founded, the author should be contacted and the original raw data may be requested. If further investigation is required, the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) recommends that any investigations should be undertaken by the authorâ€™s institution.
We are committed that the published articles at RAC are citable, recognizable, transparent, reproducible (when appropriate and possible), and recognized as intellectual products of high value and quality. We are also committed to making the research data of RACâ€™s published articles FAIR (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, and Reusable). For that, we are committed to Open Science practices. In these guidelines, we present our policy for these practices, which, for us, include:
1. Open Access
2. Open Data
3. Open Materials
4. Open Education
5. Open Peer-Review
RACâ€™s general guidelines in compliance with Open Science:
- Authors must follow all submission guidelines described in the document â€śGuidelines for Publicationâ€ť.
- Authors must fill out the Open Science Statement, which must be pasted to the end of the Cover Letter.
- Authors must comply to share the research data (whenever possible) following the specificities of Table 1.
- It is mandatory that authors inform: (1) whether the data has been used in a previously published article or preprint (sharing the associated DOI number), and (2) whether the authors intend to use the same data in future studies (in such case, authors must commit to citing RACâ€™s published article in the future studies).
- We encourage the reuse of data. Authors must cite the original study and the DOI of the data reused. Reused data must be stored in an open repository and be used in a previously published article.
- We encourage Open Peer-Review. RAC invites reviewers to allow including their identification in the final version of all published articles under double-blind review.
- RAC also encourages the practice of reports sharing (Open Reports). RAC invites all reviewers to allow sharing the content of their reports alongside the published article.
Open Data, Open Code, and Open Materials
Since July 2018, RAC encourages authors to share their research data and materials. Authors must follow the guidelines in Table 1.
To assure the reproducibility of functional-positivist research, since issue 22(4), published in July 2018, the manuscripts accepted in the Journal of Contemporary Administration (Revista de AdministraĂ§ĂŁo ContemporĂ˘nea, RAC) have been able to receive up to two icons, in addition to the open access icon, in recognition of open science practices. These include an open data badge and an open materials badge. The attribution of one or more of these badges recognizing the open practices is conditioned to the provision of information by the authors. Such information consists of the complete references, containing URL and DOI code, for the data and/or materials deposited in a public repository. These icons appear in the beginning part of the published document, and information about open practices is published in a note that appears at the end of the article just after the reference list. The icons are granted following the disclosure method, in which the authors provide public information, indicating that they comply with the criteria for assigning these icons to their paper published in RAC.
Open Data Icon: The authors of the paper provide a URL, DOI, or another permanent path that allows unrestricted access to the data in a public open-source repository (such as Mendeley or Zenodo). Since July 2018, the journal has strongly encouraged authors to make all data associated with their submission openly available, according to the FAIR principles (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, Reusable). If data is not being made available with the journal publication, then a statement from the author should be provided within the submission to explain why. Data obtained from other sources must be appropriately credited. If research includes the use of software code, statistical analysis, or algorithms then we also recommend that authors upload the code into Code Ocean, where it will be hosted on an open, cloud-based computational reproducibility platform, providing researchers and developers with an easy way to share, validate and discover code published in academic journals.
Open Materials Icon: The authors of the paper provide a URL, DOI, or another permanent path to access the materials in a public open access repository. In addition, the authors also provide sufficient information for an interested person to be able to reproduce the reported methodology. As the traditional Materials and Methods section often includes insufficient detail for readers to wholly assess the research process, the journal encourages authors to publish detailed descriptions of their structured methods in open, online platforms such as protocols.io. By providing a step-by-step explanation of the methods used in the study, the chance of reproducibility and usability increases, whilst also allowing authors to build on their own works and gain additional credit and citations.
In particular cases in which authors choose not to provide data and/or materials used in their surveys, an explanatory note of that decision should be presented in the final parts of the published document.
We acknowledge that Open Data practices are more challenging in qualitative than quantitative research. With these challenges in mind, we provide a shortlist of items authors can use before (a) submitting their qualitative research article and (b) reusing qualitative data from previously published articles.
For authors submitting a qualitative research article
- Make sure you describe all procedures for data collection/construction in the articleâ€™s main text or in an appendix (if necessary);
- We encourage researchers to seek permission from research participants so that study data may be published under the license CC 1.0 "Public Domain Dedication" so that they are open for academic use and for future research. Thus, authors can make the data public as long as they are free of personal identifiers or any element that allows a deductive link with specific participants;
- Present (when necessary) any applicable confidentiality protocol in an appendix.
For authors reusing qualitative data from previously published articles
. Report explicitly the purpose of the original article and the procedures used throughout data collection. Implying that â€śthe original article explains data collection/constructionâ€ť is not enough. Readers and reviewers must be able to judge and make informed decisions about the procedures without necessarily accessing the original article;
. Acknowledge that the original data may not have been collected to answer the same research question; thus, authors need to explain the differences between articles in data usage;
. Acknowledge that authors do not have the benefit of the contextual experience in collecting/constructing the data;
. Make sure you can rely on the original researchers to have followed the procedures described in the original article;
. Report any inconsistency between the original articleâ€™s data description and the dataset;
. Report consistently the original articleâ€™s situational context and how the original authors build knowledge using the data;
. Report the role (if any) the data reuse researcher had in the data collection and the original research.
RAC will not accept articles with reused qualitative data that:
- Does not appropriately use the original data or use it out of context;
- Does not provide a research protocol containing all analysis in the original dataset;
- Lacks transparency (of any aspect) about the original research.
Chauvette, A., Schick-Makaroff, K., & Molzahn, A. E. (2019). Open data in qualitative research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 18, 1-6. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406918823863
Poth, C. N. (2019). Rigorous and ethical qualitative data reuse: Potential perils and promising practices. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 18, 1-4. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406919868870
Table 1. Guidelines for sharing quantitative and qualitative data.
Type of data/or type of study
RACâ€™s call for the authorâ€™s action
Primary quantitative data
Data generated originally by authors, such as surveys, questionnaires, interviews, etc.
Secondary quantitative data
World bank, Ipeadata, Government data, etc.
Reused quantitative and qualitative data
Data published in public depositories, such as Harvard Dataverse, Mendeley data, etc.
Laboratory experiments, etc.
Codes and Research Protocols
Scripts, codes, interviews designs, structured data collection, computer programs or functions, etc.
Data generated within a code or research protocol
Data collected from databases, such as EconomĂˇtica, Compustat, and similar
Comply sharing or explain why cannot share. If authors do not have legal rights over the collected data, authors must:
1. Present a code with the command to download the data from the original source, if possible;
2. Present a table containing the name/title of the variable/data as defined by the original source. No changed names are accepted; and,
3. Commit to supporting editors and reviewers' attempts to replicate results
Primary Qualitative Data
Ethnographies, case studies, interviews, participant observations, etc.
Comply with sharing or explain why you cannot share. In case of not sharing, observe the following requirements:
1. Put all interview and observation scripts as an appendix to the article along with the justification for not sharing;
2. Data used in the research may be requested by editors or reviewers during the review process, but without further public disclosure.
Secondary qualitative data
1. Public data: mandatory sharing;
2. Private non-shareable data: mention the origin of the data and provide the justification for not sharing.
2.1. Data used in the survey may be requested by editors or reviewers during the review process, but without further public disclosure.
No data sharing is required. Authors must inform it in the Open Science Statement.
Open education refers to the open and free availability of educational resources. RAC supports Open Education practices and has implemented its own initiative: the sections on methodological articles and cases for teaching. We believe that Open Education brings science and technology to everyone, regardless of social class and the involvement of institutions. We encourage authors to learn more about our methodological articles and cases for teaching initiatives.
RAC, in line with Open Science practices, in January/2020 started to encourage reviewers to join the Open Peer Review, in which the journal publishes, on the title page of each article, information about the editors and reviewers who contributed to the peer review process for each article. After the article they reviewed is accepted for publication, reviewers and editors are invited to authorize to reveal their identities. Since August/2020, RAC fosters the practice of reports sharing (Open Reports) with the permission of editors and reviewers.
As of August 07, 2020, new submissions for RAC must comply with the following policies for Open Peer Review.
As of August 2020 (issue v. 25, n. 2), RAC started to publish, alongside the article, the peer-review reports containing the reviewersâ€™ comments and authorsâ€™ responses. Such content is published upon the reviewersâ€™ authorization to disclose their reports and identities.
The Peer Review Report is available on the articleâ€™s page level on the journalâ€™s website, via a button of the same name, which will redirect readers to the report in a Zenodo document. Such document is authored by the authors and reviewers, with a unique DOI. The content of the Peer Review Report is the full copy of the reviewers' and authors' reports. Typing and punctuation errors will not be edited. Only comments that violate the journalâ€™s ethical policies such as derogatory or defamatory comments will be edited (omitted) from the report. In these cases, it will be clearly stated that parts of the report were edited. Up to 90 days after the Peer Review Report is published, authors and reviewers may request corrections in their reports only if the identified error differs from the content of the original report.
All authors must allow the publication of all reportsâ€™ replies. That is, the authorsâ€™ responses to the editors and reviewers during the submission evaluation process.
In the submission, authors must allow the publication of all reportsâ€™ replies by sending, alongside the submission, the filled Open Science Statement, which must be pasted to the end of the Cover Letter.
For reviewers and editors:
RAC invites reviewers and editors to allow:
(1) including their identification in the final version of all published articles under double-blind review; or,
(2) including their identification in the final version of all published articles under double-blind review AND the content of their reports, which will be shared alongside the published article.
In the submission, authors must inform whether their article was submitted to a preprint server by sending alongside submission the filled Open Science Statement, which must be pasted to the end of the Cover Letter.
According to Nature (444, 2006), during the peer-review process, basic mistakes and errors of judgment are frequently identified, minimizing the number that makes it through into often much-improved final publications. Erroneous results that do slip through the peer-review net may be promptly identified; if sufficiently serious, they are corrected or even withdrawn.
Under Nature (444, 2006) view, when an important error has been made in a published piece of work, yet the central claim or result still stands, the publication of a corrigendum is the most sensible way forward; others are thereby alerted to any inaccuracies in the paper, which may have an impact on their own research. Yet, If the errors that have been made undermine the principal message of the paper, then a retraction is in order â€” the paper may still contain valid scientific information, but the original publication has now lost its core motivation.
Corrections to a published paper
Honest errors are a part of science and publishing and require publication of a correction when they are detected. RAC expects authors to inform the RACâ€™s EIC of any errors of fact they have noticed (or have been informed of) in their article once published. Corrections are made at the RACâ€™s discretion. A correction notice will be published in the next available online issue. The online version of the article will link to the correction notice, and vice versa. Besides, correction notices will be indexed and linked to the original records in Scielo.
Retractions are considered by RACâ€™s editors in cases of evidence of unreliable data or findings, plagiarism, duplicate publication, and unethical research. We may consider an expression of concern notice if an article is under investigation. All retraction notices explain why the article was retracted. When the paper is included in an issue we replace the version of the article that will be posted containing just the metadata, with a retraction note replacing the original text. The *.pdf document will be replaced with a version watermarked with â€śRetracted Versionâ€ť. Yet, the original text will remain accessible. In rare cases, we may have to remove the original content for legal reasons. In such cases, we will leave the metadata (title and authors) and replace the text with a note saying the article has been removed for legal reasons. A retraction notice will also be published online. Retraction notices will be always indexed and linked to the original records in Scielo.
Referee misconduct can range from minor issues, such as rude or unconstructive reviews, to major issues, such as the appropriation of an author's ideas or data. RAC entrusts reviewers with a high level of responsibility and keeps a very clear complaint policy. RAC knows reviewers, when performing their tasks, have access to privileged information (i.e. unpublished research) and their recommendations can sway the publication outcome. Unfortunately, there are rare occasions when that trust can be misplaced. Minor problems are relatively easy to respond to. Delete rude comments, and don't invite reviewers again if they supply poor quality, late, or unconstructive reviews. There may be other instances where RACâ€™s editors receive complaints from authors about reviewer misconduct:
A possible complaint of reviewer misconduct concerns the alleged appropriation of the manuscript during the review process. An author may raise a complaint if they discover their ideas/manuscript are used in a published paper. They may conclude that these can only have been appropriated during the review process. These issues can be complicated because there is likely to be some time lag between the review process conducted at RAC and the publication of the appropriated material. Because complaints may involve another journal and another editorial team, it's best to make sure you keep them informed. We recommend following the steps outlined in the COPE Flowcharts., which RAC is a member of, and subscribes to the principles of COPE.
Following the rejection of a paper, the author may appeal to the RACâ€™s EIC. RAC keeps a clear appeals policy stating under what circumstances an appeal will be considered, and how the appeal process will be handled. See item â€śComplaints proceduresâ€ť here.
Conflicts of Interest
One issue authors might raise during an appeal for reviewer misconduct is bias due to conflict of interests. Since RAC operates double-blind peer review, accusations of bias are likely to be suppositional rather than substantiated, but should still be given careful consideration. Appeals can often be resolved by getting a second opinion. Engaging a new reviewer will eliminate the potential alleged bias. It is difficult in these cases to evidence malicious intent on behalf of a reviewer.
According to Fong and Wilhite (2017), journal rankings matter to editors, editorial boards, and publishers because rankings affect subscriptions and prestige. And, based on this, there are risks related to citation manipulation, i.e. basically when editors direct authors to add citations even if those citations are irrelevant. In order to meet COPE advice, and to keep ethical standards, RAC adopts the following procedure: authors whose submitted manuscripts are found to include citations whose primary purpose is to increase the number of citations to a given authorâ€™s work, or to articles published in a particular journal, may incur sanctions (i.e.: (a) rejection of the manuscript and any other manuscripts submitted by the author(s); (b) not allowing submission for 1â€“3 years; (c) prohibition from acting as an editor or reviewer. RAC may also apply additional sanctions for severe ethical violations.). Besides, editors and reviewers must not ask authors to include references merely to increase citations to their own or an associateâ€™s work, to the journal, or to another journal they are associated with.
1. Substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work; or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data for the work; AND
2. Drafting the work or revising it critically for important intellectual content; AND
3. Final approval of the version to be published; AND
4. Agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.
In addition to being accountable for the parts of the work he or she has done, an author should be able to identify which co-authors are responsible for specific other parts of the work. In addition, authors should have confidence in the integrity of the contributions of their co-authors. We include only one corresponding author per article. Any further contribution details (e.g., equal contribution) must be included in the contributors or acknowledgment sections at the end of the article.
The RAC requires that all those designated as authors should meet all four ICMJE criteria for authorship, and all who meet the four criteria should be identified as authors. We recognize only natural persons as authors. These authorship criteria are intended to reserve the status of authorship for those who deserve credit and can take responsibility for the work. The criteria are not intended for use as a means to disqualify colleagues from authorship who otherwise meet authorship criteria by denying them the opportunity to meet criterions #2 or #3 above. Therefore, all individuals who meet the first criterion should have the opportunity to participate in the review, drafting, and final approval of the manuscript.
The individuals who conduct the work are responsible for identifying who meets these criteria and ideally should do so when planning the work, making modifications as appropriate as the work progresses. The corresponding author takes primary responsibility for communication with the journal during the manuscript submission, peer review, and publication process, and typically ensures that all the journalâ€™s administrative requirements, such as providing details of authorship, ethics committee approval, clinical trial registration documentation, and gathering conflict of interest forms and statements, are properly completed, although these duties may be delegated to one or more co-authors. At RAC we want authors to assure us that all authors included in a paper fulfill the criteria of authorship. In addition, we want assurance that there is no one else who fulfills the criteria but has not been included as an author. When we encounter disagreements among authors we follow guidance from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), which RAC is a member of, and subscribes to the principles of â€” see here and here.
ANPAD's Handbook of Best Practices in Scientific Publication adds to RAC's policy of authorship criteria that:
â€˘ Editorial process should be shared between researchers and teachers belonging to various institutions, in order to avoid the owner-journal, that is, produced mainly by people linked to a specific institution;
â€˘ Each year, the fraction of articles originating from a particular institution (that is, with at least one author, teacher, or student linked to it) must not exceed 15% of the total articles published;
â€˘ In the same year, more than one author's paper should not be published, regardless of the author's position in the text.
When submitting articles for the Journal of Contemporary Administration (Revista de AdministraĂ§ĂŁo ContemporĂ˘nea, RAC), authors must inform if there was funding for the research. In the case of a research result with funding, quote the funding agency and the process number only in the ScholarOne system. In the event the article is approved for publication, this information will be included by the editorial team in the final version for publication (PDF).
Submissions for the Journal of Contemporary Administration (Revista de AdministraĂ§ĂŁo ContemporĂ˘nea, RAC) are assigned to editors in an effort to minimize potential conflicts of interest. The following relationships between editors and authors are considered conflicts and are avoided:
- Current colleagues, OR
- Recent colleagues, OR
- Recent co-authors, OR
- Doctoral students for which editor served as committee chair.
After papers are assigned, associate editors are required to inform the editor-in-chief of any conflicts not included in the list above. In the event that none of the editors satisfy all of the conflict screens, associate editors who are least conflicted will be assigned to the manuscript. RACâ€™s submissions are also assigned to reviewers to minimize conflicts of interest. After papers are assigned, reviewers are asked to inform the editor of any conflicts that may exist.
ANPAD's Handbook of Best Practices in Scientific Publication imposes additional conditions, which RAC assigns consent: Papers authored by the Editor and Associate Editors should not be published, even if this authorship is shared with other authors, and not even by leaders of the maintainers of the journal, except in special cases. When this is the case, this specificity should be cited and justified in the Editorial of the issue, and it is also necessary to explicitly indicate a special editor for that specific article, evidently maintaining the anonymity of the authors and evaluators.
This procedure applies to complaints about the policies, procedures, or actions of the RAC's editorial staff. We welcome complaints as they provide an opportunity and a spur for improvement, and we aim to respond quickly, courteously, and constructively. The procedure outlined below aims to be fair to those making complaints and those complained about.
Our definition of a complaint is as follows:
- The complainant defines his or her expression of unhappiness as a complaint; and
- We infer that the complainant is not simply disagreeing with a decision we have made or something we have published (which happens every day) but thinks that there has been a failure of process - for example, a long delay or a rude response - or a severe misjudgment.
- The complaint must be about something that is within the responsibility of the RAC's editorial department - content or process.
Making a complaint
The best way to reach us is by email. Complaints should be directly emailed to email@example.com, where they are dealt with confidentially. This email address is solely for complaints as defined above - site-related issues. Complaints at RAC are resolved through a process of response and escalation:
- Wherever possible complaints will be dealt with by the relevant member of the editorial staff, escalating to an associate editor if required.
- In the case that this initial response is insufficient, the complainant can request for the complaint to be escalated to the Editor-in-chief, whose decision is final.
- If a complainant remains unhappy after what the editor considers a definitive reply, the complainant may complain to an external body (see below).
- All complaints will be formally acknowledged within seven working days.
- If possible a full response will be made within four weeks. If this is not possible, an interim response will be given within four weeks. Further interim responses will be provided until the complaint is resolved.
- Complaints that are not under the control of the RACâ€™s editorial staff will be sent to the RACâ€™s Editorial board.
- Complaints about editorial matters are sent to the Editor-in-chief.
It's the responsibility of RACâ€™s Editor to maintain and develop RAC's profile and reputation. The Editor also has the final responsibility for the content, ensuring that it meets the Aims and Scope of RAC and reflects changes in the field by presenting contemporary business management research. A new submission is first evaluated by the Editor-in-Chief (EIC). There are general and specific criteria for manuscripts to get published in RAC and become successful publications. The set of Acceptance and Rejection criteria may help you to maximize the chance to get accepted and minimize the chance to get rejected. Evidently, a paper does not have to measure up to all criteria, but should at least fulfill several of them.
Journal of Contemporary Administration (RAC) follows Anpad's Handbook of Best Practices in Scientific Publication, as well as the Academy of Management (AOM) Code of Ethics. Authors are advised to:
Prudence in research design, human subject use, and confidentiality and reporting of results is essential. Proper attribution of work is a necessity.
Informed Consent: When authors conduct research, they obtain the informed consent of the individual or individuals, using language that is reasonably understandable to that person or persons. Written or oral consent, permission, and assent are documented appropriately.
Ethical Conducting and reporting: It is the duty of authors conducting research to design, implement, analyze, report, and present their findings rigorously.
Handling Confidential Data: Authors have an obligation to ensure the protection of confidential information. When gathering confidential information, they should take into account the long-term uses of the information, including its potential placement in public archives or the examination of information by others. Authors must take reasonable precautions to protect the confidentiality rights of others; Confidential information is treated as such even if it lacks legal protection or privilege; When using private information, authors protect the confidentiality of individually identifiable information. Information is private when an individual can reasonably expect that the information will not be made public with personal identifiers.