Política de Ética e Integridade

The Journal of Education in Science and Mathematics (RECEM) declares its commitment to practices that uphold research ethics and integrity and expects the same from all those involved in the editorial process: editors, reviewers, and authors.

Commitments of the Editorial Team

Confidentiality – The Editorial Team commits to maintaining the confidentiality of any information related to manuscripts submitted to the journal throughout the entire editorial process.

Impartiality – The Editors-in-Chief and Associate Editors are responsible for the desk review evaluation of manuscripts and for deciding which manuscripts should be published by the journal. Therefore, they are committed to evaluating and deciding on publication or rejection based on the journal’s Editorial Policy, in an impartial manner. The Editorial Board may be consulted to assist in decision-making when necessary.

Editors must also act impartially in resolving conflicts arising from allegations of misconduct (e.g., plagiarism, misuse of data, improper attribution of authorship) in the development of research reported in a manuscript submitted to the journal.

Transparency – The Editorial Team must observe transparency in the formulation and enforcement of journal policies and in conducting processes for verifying allegations of misconduct in the development of research reported in submitted manuscripts.

Conflict of Interest – The Editorial Team must inform the editor of any potential or existing conflict of interest before accepting an evaluation assignment or during the evaluation process. If the conflict of interest involves the Editor-in-Chief, they must decline the evaluation and delegate the task to Associate Editors or a member of the Editorial Board.

Commitments of Reviewers

Confidentiality – Reviewers are committed to maintaining the confidentiality of any information related to manuscripts assigned to them for evaluation and review.

Impartiality – The evaluation of a manuscript must consider the merit of the research and the journal’s Editorial Policy. The evaluation and recommendation must not be influenced positively or negatively by professional, personal, and/or financial motivations.

Transparency – If any indication of misconduct (e.g., plagiarism, misuse of methods, fabrication and/or falsification of data) is identified in the research under evaluation, the reviewer must immediately inform the editor. Reviewers are also responsible for informing the editor when they do not feel qualified to evaluate a manuscript due to thematic incompatibility.

Objectivity and Thoroughness – Reviewers commit to providing objective and sufficiently justified reports to support the editor’s final decision.

Timeliness – Reviewers must immediately notify the editor if they are unable to evaluate a manuscript. Upon accepting the task, reviewers are responsible for meeting the deadlines established by the journal.

Conflict of Interest – Reviewers are responsible for informing the editor of any potential or existing conflict of interest before accepting the review or during the evaluation process.

Commitments of Authors

Author Guidelines – Authors commit to complying with the general standards presented in the Author Guidelines, as this minimizes many issues related to research misconduct.

Authorship – Authors must recognize as authors all those who directly and significantly contributed to the conception of the research presented in the manuscript, participated in writing and critical revision, and assume responsibility for the information presented.

Sources of Information – Ethical conduct regarding sources of information is fundamental to ensuring research integrity. Authors are responsible for properly citing all sources used in their research, in accordance with the Author Guidelines.

Authors must ensure appropriate citation and identification of sources when using third-party materials.

Any suspicion of plagiarism or other misconduct related to manuscripts submitted to the Journal of Education in Science and Mathematics will be investigated and analyzed.

RECEM adopts the flowcharts of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), available at: https://publicationethics.org/node/19631. In the interest of transparency, some points are highlighted below, following COPE flowcharts.

In cases of:

Allegations concerning published manuscripts or suspicion of misconduct, the following may be considered:

a) A reviewer suspected of appropriating an author’s ideas or data. Key points: Reviewers will be instructed that submitted material must be treated confidentially and must not be used in any way until publication.

b) Responding to complainants when concerns are raised directly. Key points: Once aware, the journal will respect the complainant’s preference for anonymity.

c) Responding to complainants when concerns are raised via social media. Key points: The complainant’s preference for anonymity will be respected, and the discussion will be removed from the public domain.

d) When research institutions are contacted by journals. Key points: Institutions should clearly provide contact details on their websites for complaints regarding research ethics or research-related concerns.

RECEM will maintain contact with institutions and publishers at each stage of the process. When an investigation identifies an error, the institution should include a recommendation for correction or retraction, as appropriate. Policies and training will be updated whenever necessary.

Guidelines for Research Data Sharing

  • RECEM recommends that research data be shared through the repository of the principal author’s institution, aiming to promote dissemination and socialization of research published in the journal.

COPE Retraction Guidelines

Editors should consider retracting a publication if:

  • There is clear evidence that the findings are unreliable, either due to a major error (e.g., calculation or experimental error) or as a result of fabrication (e.g., of data) or falsification (e.g., image manipulation);

  • It constitutes plagiarism;

  • The findings were previously published elsewhere without proper attribution, disclosure to the editor, permission for republication, or justification (i.e., redundant publication);

  • It contains material or data used without authorization;

  • Copyright has been infringed or there is another serious legal issue (e.g., defamation, privacy);

  • It reports unethical research;

  • It was published solely on the basis of a compromised or manipulated peer review process;

  • The author(s) failed to disclose a relevant competing interest (conflict of interest) that, in the editor’s opinion, unduly influenced the interpretation of the work or the recommendations of editors and reviewers.

Retraction notices should:

  • Be linked to the retracted article whenever possible (i.e., in all online versions);

  • Clearly identify the retracted article (e.g., including the title and authors in the retraction heading or citing the retracted article);

  • Be clearly identified as a retraction (distinct from other types of correction or comment);

  • Be published promptly to minimize harmful effects;

  • Be freely accessible to all readers (i.e., not behind paywalls);

  • State who is retracting the article;

  • Indicate the reason(s) for retraction;

  • Be objective, factual, and avoid inflammatory language.

Retractions are generally not appropriate if:

  • Authorship is disputed, but there is no reason to doubt the validity of the conclusions;

  • The main conclusions of the work remain reliable and a correction would adequately address the errors or concerns;

  • Editors have inconclusive evidence to support retraction or are awaiting additional information, such as from an institutional investigation;

  • Conflicts of interest are reported after publication, but in the editor’s opinion are unlikely to have influenced interpretations, recommendations, or conclusions.

For more information, see COPE at: https://publicationethics.org/node/19631

Software Used for Similarity Detection by RECEM

The software used includes: CopySpider, Plagium, Farejador de Plágio, and Viper.

Conflict of Interest

Conflicts of interest may be personal, financial, or non-financial (political, academic, or religious).

  • Personal conflicts: Editors should avoid making decisions on manuscripts that conflict with their own interests, such as those submitted by their department, research collaborators, co-authors (within a defined period, e.g., the past five years), competitors, or manuscripts addressing topics that may result in financial gain (e.g., shares in a company whose product is discussed).

  • Financial conflicts: A potential financial conflict of interest arises when an individual or organization may benefit financially from a decision to publish or reject a manuscript. Financial conflicts may include salary, grants from an interested company, honoraria, shares or equity interests, and intellectual property rights (patents, royalties, copyrights).

Non-financial conflicts: Other non-financial conflicts of interest must also be avoided or disclosed, including personal, political, academic, and religious conflicts.

To prevent potential conflicts, RECEM will require a document/declaration in which authors must disclose any conflicts of interest related to the manuscript during the submission process.