Code of Ethics
The RC&C. Revista de Contabilidade e Controladoria, as a publication committed to the highest standards of excellence, adheres to the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Code of Conduct, which provides guidance for editors, reviewers, and authors.
Authors' Responsibilities
Prior to submission: Before submitting articles to RC&C., authors must declare that they have read and understood the submission requirements and agree to the journal’s article selection procedures. Submitted manuscripts must comply with the journal’s publication guidelines.
Multiple and/or repetitive submissions: Authors must not submit the same manuscript simultaneously to more than one journal or publisher, nor should they resubmit it multiple times. Such practices may result in duplicate publication, which is unethical and unacceptable within the scientific community.
Originality and plagiarism: Manuscripts submitted to RC&C. must be original and unpublished; they must not have been published, in whole or in part, in any language. Authors should avoid duplicate publications — that is, when two or more papers by the same author(s), without cross-referencing, present essentially the same content, hypotheses, data, discussions, or conclusions. RC&C. uses the CrossRef Similarity Check, powered by iThenticate, to support the detection of potential research misconduct in submitted manuscripts.
Works previously presented at academic conferences (and published in their proceedings), as well as those derived from theses or dissertations, are considered unpublished for the purposes of submission to the journal, provided that they have not been published, in whole or in part, in scientific journals.
Salami publication: Authors must avoid the fragmentation of research, which occurs when a single study is divided into smaller parts to produce multiple publications with identical or substantially similar hypotheses, samples, and methods.
Sources and references: Authors must properly acknowledge the original sources of materials used in their manuscripts to avoid plagiarism. Intentional omission of authorship may occur in various forms:
a) Literal copying: word-for-word reproduction of a work, in whole or in part, without permission or citation of the original source;
b) Substantial copying: reproduction of research materials, tables, processes, or equipment developed by another author;
c) Unreferenced paraphrasing: reproduction of another author’s ideas without proper citation;
d) Text recycling: reuse of parts of previous works by the same author, presented as new and unpublished.
Intellectual property: Authors must respect the intellectual property rights of others. When using materials that are not their own (e.g., photographs, illustrations, graphs, tables, maps, or diagrams), they must obtain proper authorization for reproduction. Authors must also refrain from any fraudulent conduct during the research and publication process, including the fabrication, falsification, or manipulation of data and results.
Authorship: There are two main criteria for recognition as an author: a) substantial contribution to the conception and design of the research, data collection, analysis, or interpretation; b) drafting or critical revision of the article’s intellectual content.
Authors must be listed according to their degree of responsibility and involvement in the work. Individuals who do not meet these criteria should be mentioned only in the Acknowledgments section (e.g., technical support, academic supervision, or financial assistance).
RC&C. follows the CRediT Taxonomy to ensure transparency in authors’ contributions to scientific work, improving attribution, credit, and accountability systems.
Unacceptable forms of authorship include:
a) False authorship – inclusion of individuals who contributed little or nothing to the research, or omission of genuine collaborators;
b) Ghost authorship – omission of professional writers or analysts who made substantial contributions;
c) Honorary authorship – inclusion of names solely for institutional affiliation or prestige, without meaningful contribution.
Use of Artificial Intelligence Tools: RC&C. follows the recommendations and usage guidelines on Artificial Intelligence established by COPE and SciELO Network.
The use of tools and resources that assist authors in manuscript preparation is encouraged, provided attribution standards are respected and ethical and scientific integrity are maintained. Authors have the right and freedom to use tools that aid in writing, reviewing, and translating their articles.
However, only humans can be recognized as authors, under the following conditions:
a) disclose the sources of all materials used in research and writing. Any content generated by AI applications must be mentioned in the Abstract and Methods sections (or equivalent);
b) ensure that all cited material is accurately attributed and that references are valid, as AI systems may generate non-existent or incorrect citations;
c) assume full public responsibility for the submitted work;
d) concealing the use or content generated by AI constitutes an ethical breach that violates principles of transparency and research integrity.
Errors in published articles: If an author identifies a significant error or inaccuracy in their published article, they must immediately notify the editorial team and provide the necessary information for correction. Corrections will be made as soon as possible in the journal’s online version and, if applicable, through an erratum in the print version.
Responsibility: All authors are responsible for the content of the submitted article. They must also ensure that the literature review is comprehensive, current, and relevant, addressing diverse perspectives and schools of thought.
Reviewers' and Referees' Responsibilities
Contribution to editorial decisions: Peer review is an essential process that assists editors in making decisions regarding submitted manuscripts. By participating, reviewers contribute to enhancing the scientific and literary quality of the research. Reviewers must provide critical, honest, constructive, and impartial evaluations within their area of expertise.
Timeliness: A reviewer who feels unqualified to assess a particular study or who knows they cannot complete the review within the agreed timeframe must promptly inform the editors. Reviewers should commit to submitting their evaluations within the established deadlines or as soon as possible.
Confidentiality: RC&C. adopts a double-blind peer review process, in which neither authors nor reviewers know each other’s identities. All manuscripts and related materials must be treated as confidential and cannot be shared with third parties without the express consent of the editors.
Objectivity and impartiality: Reviewers must remain objective and impartial in their evaluations. If they have any personal, professional, or financial interest that could affect their judgment, they should decline to participate in the review process.
Quality and detail of the review: Reviewers must respond to the invitation within the stipulated time and use the form provided by the journal, following all established criteria. They should indicate whether the article is publishable, requires revision, or should be rejected, providing clear justifications and specific recommendations to improve the manuscript.
Conflicts of interest: Reviewers and referees must inform the editorial team of any potential conflict of interest or impediment to evaluation, even if they believe it does not affect their impartiality.
Suspected ethical violations: If a reviewer identifies possible ethical irregularities in a manuscript — such as plagiarism, self-plagiarism, lack of reference to original sources, or significant similarity with other works — they must immediately notify the handling editor. Reviewers should not conduct independent investigations unless formally requested by the journal.
Use of Artificial Intelligence Tools: Reviewers are responsible for evaluating manuscripts fairly and objectively, focusing on quality and originality. Their expertise and knowledge are essential, and they may use various tools, such as plagiarism detection software, statistical analysis programs, and academic search engines.
If the manuscript is not a preprint, reviewers must not upload it to any service that could compromise the confidentiality of authorship or content. The use of AI tools must follow ethical standards and best practices, and any AI-generated content should be documented in the review report. Concealing the use of AI tools constitutes an ethical violation that undermines transparency in peer review.
Editors' Responsibilities
Publication decisions: The editorial team of RC&C. ensures transparency throughout the entire review and publication process. It manages manuscripts from submission to the final decision of acceptance or rejection, guaranteeing author and reviewer anonymity. Based on peer review reports, the editorial team decides on publication according to the criteria of relevance, originality, and scientific contribution.
Each manuscript is evaluated by at least two expert reviewers; in case of conflicting opinions, a third reviewer is invited to provide an additional assessment.
Impartiality and integrity: Editors evaluate manuscripts solely on their scientific merit, without discrimination based on race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, ethnic origin, nationality, or political opinion.
Confidentiality: Editors and editorial staff must not disclose information about submitted manuscripts to anyone other than those directly involved in the editorial process, such as authors, reviewers, and co-editors. They must preserve the confidentiality of all research content, authorship, and reviews, ensuring anonymity and intellectual integrity.
Conflicts of interest and transparency: Editors must not use, for personal benefit, any part or content of submitted manuscripts without the authors’ express written permission.
Artificial Intelligence Tools: The editors commit to not using generative AI, due to risks such as breaches of confidentiality, superficial and non-specific feedback, bias, hidden suggestions, and false information, including fabricated references. They are also committed to verifying any undeclared use of generative AI or automated peer-review suggestions.
Editorial responsibility: The editorial team must communicate clearly and transparently the reasons for acceptance or rejection, based on the journal’s scientific and ethical standards. All communications and queries from authors, reviewers, or other stakeholders must be addressed promptly and transparently.
If any errors or inaccuracies are found in published content, the editorial team will issue the appropriate corrections, errata, or clarifications via the journal’s official website.
Timeliness:
Editors are responsible for ensuring that review and publication deadlines are met, guaranteeing agility in the dissemination of scientific results. The initial editorial decision (acceptance or rejection) will be issued within 30 days of submission, and the full peer review process must be concluded within 360 days.
Dissemination:
After each issue is published, the RC&C. editorial team is responsible for promoting broad dissemination of its content by submitting articles to national and international repositories, databases, and indexing systems, and by publicly announcing the release of new issues.
Complaint Handling Process
RC&C. accepts complaints from authors whenever they are properly substantiated. All complaints will be handled in accordance with COPE guidelines and flowcharts, as well as the journal’s internal policies. Under no circumstances will the anonymity of authors or reviewers be compromised during the complaint review process.
Appeals regarding the review process will be considered only if the author identifies potential errors or inconsistencies in the evaluation. The competence of reviewers will not be questioned. Complaints must be submitted to the editor, accompanied by justifications and supporting evidence. If necessary, additional documentation may be requested from the Editorial Committee or a subject-matter expert. A formal response will be sent to the complainant within three months of receipt.
If plagiarism is reported after publication and confirmed by the Editorial Board, the manuscript will be immediately retracted and removed from the journal’s website and from all repositories and databases where the plagiarized text is indexed.
References
Committee on Publication Ethics. (2003). How to handle authorship disputes: a guide for new researchers. Recuperado de: https://publicationethics.org/guidance/guideline/how-handle-authorship-disputes-guide-new-researchers
Committee on Publication Ethics. (2017). Ethical guidelines for peer reviewers. Recuperado de: https://publicationethics.org/guidance/guideline/ethical-guidelines-peer-reviewers
Committee on Publication Ethics. (2019). A short guide to ethical editing for new editors. Recuperado de: https://doi.org/10.24318/cope.2019.1.8
Committee on Publication Ethics. (2021). Ghost, guest, or gift authorship in a submitted manuscript. Recuperado de: https://publicationethics.org/guidance/flowchart/ghost-guest-or-gift-authorship-submitted-manuscript
Committeeon Publication Ethics. (2022). General approach to publication ethics for the editorial office. Recuperado de: https://publicationethics.org/guidance/flowchart/general-approach-publication-ethics-editorial-office
Committee on Publication Ethics. (2022). Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing. Recuperado de: https://publicationethics.org/guidance/guideline/principles-transparency-and-best-practice-scholarly-publishing
Scientific Electronic Library Online (SciELO) (2023). Guia de uso de ferramentas e recursos de Inteligência Artificial na comunicação de pesquisas na Rede SciELO. Recuperado de: https://wp.scielo.org/wp-content/uploads/Guia-de-uso-de-ferramentas-e-recursos-de-IA-20230914.pdf
Committee on Publication Ethics. (2023). Artificial intelligence and authorship. Recuperado de: https://publicationethics.org/news/artificial-intelligence-and-authorship
Committee on Publication Ethics. (2025). Retraction Guidelines. Recuperado de: https://publicationethics.org/guidance/guideline/retraction-guidelines
