About the Journal
Focus and Scope
The Revista da Faculdade de Direito UFPR (RFDUFPR, the Journal), affiliated with the Graduate Program in Law at the Federal University of Paraná, is published quarterly and welcomes original articles from both national and international contributors. The journal covers all legal fields and aims to deepen Brazilian legal culture by fostering the intersection of law with other areas of knowledge, while maintaining a commitment to building a democratic, just, and inclusive society.
Peer Review Process
Editors, members of the Editorial Board, professors of the Graduate Program in Law at UFPR, researchers at the Law School at the UFPR and professors and researchers from other institutions, appointed ad hoc, will be responsible for the opinions on articles submitted for publication. The Journal uses double-blind peer review, which means that both the reviewer and author identities are concealed from the reviewers, and vice versa, throughout the review process.
Open Access Policy
The journal provides public access to all its content, according to the principle that making access to research free of charge generates a greater global exchange of knowledge. The services are provided without charging any fee from authors and/or readers. Anyone can read/download articles freely without any type of fee. Such access is associated with an increase in reading and citing an author’s work. For more information on this approach, visit the Public Knowledge Project, which developed this system to improve academic quality and enhance the public character of research, distributing the Open Journal System (OJS) as well as other programs to support the public access publication system of academic sources.
Periodicity
The Revista da Faculdade de Direito UFPR (RFDUFPR, the Journal) is published every four months (at the end of April, August, and December).
Ethics and Malpractice Statement
Scientific Practice, established by the Report of the Research Integrity Committee of National Scientific and Technological Development Council (CNPq), on COPE's Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors and on Elsevier's recommendations, the Revista da Faculdade de Direito UFPR (RFDUFPR, the Journal) establishes the following ethical standards for its editorial procedures:
1 Obligations of the Editors
1.1 Editorial Decision
Based on the reviewers' opinions, editors can accept, reject or request changes in the submitted articles, as long as they fit the editorial policy. If they do not, they may be instantly rejected. The editorial decision will be grounded on the journal’s normative guidance, the authenticity of the text, its compatibility with the editorial line, compliance with the guidelines for authors, the quality of the research and of its argumentation. Editorial decisions based on any kind of favoritism or discrimination constitute unethical practice and is unacceptable.
1.2 Evaluation
Editors must perform a preliminary assessment of each submission, particularly in order to check the composition compatibility with editorial policy (which includes thematic availability of reviewers, thematic distribution throughout editions, specific contextual circumstances and quantitative aspects of articles submitted and not yet edited) and to ensure the authenticity of the material, submitting it to the scrutiny of appropriate computer programs. If the minimum requirements are met, the submitted files will be forwarded to the evaluation process, whose neutrality comes from the fact that reviewers are unaware of the authorship and vice versa (double-blind peer review). The reviewers can suggest the manuscript be accepted, rejected or accepted with changes, the editors being bound to the last two hypotheses. As a rule, the occurrence of an opinion for approval with reservations and another for rejection will imply the rejection of the submission. The final decision for publication or rejection and archiving is anyway reserved for the editors.
1.3 Impartiality
Publishers should ensure assessment based on arguments and intellectual content, dissociating it from issues ranging from origin, race, sex, color, age to any other forms of discrimination, as well as favoritism. Assessments based on any kind of favoritism or discrimination constitute unethical practice and is unacceptable.
1.4 Confidentiality
Publishers should ensure both the confidentiality of information contained in submissions or related to them, such as the identity of the reviewers. The use of said information without the consent of authors constitutes unethical practice and is unacceptable.
2 Obligations of the Authors
2.1 Research and Originality
Authors must present clear and precise reports of original research, as well as coherent arguments able to sustain the relevance of the research and its conclusions. The files must fit the guidelines for authors. To reproduce, albeit in paraphrase, published research is an unethical, unacceptable practice.
2.2 Authenticity
Authors must submit unpublished articles. All submitted manuscripts will be checked by plagiarism detection software. Both plagiarism and self-plagiarism are unacceptable. In either case, the submission will be disregarded instantly. Any type of plagiarism constitutes unethical practice.
2.3 Multiple and/or Concurring Submitions
Authors should not have the same article submitted to more than one journal at a given time. Multiple/concorring submissions constitute unethical practice and is unacceptable.
2.4 References
Authors should acknowledge and indicate the source of all data, information and publications used in the research, even when data, information and publications are from their own authorship. Failure to do so constitutes unethical practice and is unacceptable.
2.5 Errors in Published Articles
If, at any time, authors detect significant errors or inaccuracies in the published articles, the editors should be informed.
2.6 Information on Authorship
All authors must be properly identified at the time of submission, and no additions will be accepted afterward. An author is defined as someone who has effectively contributed to the development of the work; merely being a research advisor, research group coordinator, etc., is not sufficient. Including anyone as an author who has not contributed, or excluding anyone who has, constitutes unethical and unacceptable conduct. If it is later discovered that an author was deliberately omitted or that any form of authorship falsification has occurred, appropriate measures will be taken on a case-by-case basis. Additionally, the unethical conduct will be publicly disclosed in a dedicated section of the first issue following such discovery.
3 Obligations of the Reviewers
3.1 Confidentiality
Information contained in or relating to submissions should remain confidential. Usage of the information received for personal purposes is an unethical and unacceptable conduct.
3.2 References Identification
Reviewers should ensure that all sources of information used in the research are properly indicated. Any attempt of plagiarism and self-plagiarism identified by the reviewer should come immediately to the attention of the editors.
3.3 Objectivity
Submissions' evaluation should be objective, focused on the quality of argumentation and on the relevance of the discussed issue to legal community, and, particularly, the relevance to editorial line. Reviewers should express their views clearly and ground them with arguments. The assessment based on any kind of favoritism or discrimination constitutes unethical and unacceptable conduct.
3.4 Punctuality
If the reviewer cannot accomplish the task on schedule, the editors must be informed for deadline extension or assigning it to another reviewer.
Potential Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in Papers Submitted to RFDUFPR
1 Introduction
Initially, the importance of transparency and guidance in the use of generative AI and AI-assisted technologies in the process of drafting articles and other materials to be published is emphasized, with RFDUFPR's (the Journal) commitment to monitor and update the guidelines as necessary to reflect advances in this field.
2 Definitions
The scope of AI use in this context is defined, specifying that it refers to the use of generative AI and AI-assisted technologies during the process of drafting articles and other materials to be published, excluding data analysis using AI tools.
3 Responsible Use of AI
3.1 Authors may use AI to improve the readability and language of their work but must not replace essential authorship tasks.
3.2 Authors must supervise and control the use of AI, carefully reviewing and manually editing the work to ensure accuracy and avoid biases.
4 Author's Responsibility
Authors are responsible for the content of their work, even when AI is used, and must ensure the integrity and accuracy of the information presented.
5 Disclosure of AI Use
Authors must explicitly declare the use, even partial, of any AI and/or AI-assisted technologies in their manuscripts, thus promoting transparency and trust among all involved in the publication process.
6 Authorship and Responsibilities
Attributing authorship to AI or AI-assisted technologies is not allowed, only exclusively human authorship is permitted, which implies responsibilities and tasks that can only be performed, in this context, by humans.
7 Compliance with Ethics and Best Practices
Authors must ensure that their work is original and respects the rights of third parties, familiarizing themselves with RFDUFPR's Ethics and Malpractice Statement before submitting their work to ensure ethical compliance.
8 Conclusion
Authors commit to following the established guidelines for the responsible use of AI in scientific research, contributing to the quality and integrity of the articles published in RFDUFPR.
