Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice Statement

The RICP (Revista do Instituto de Ciências Penais) is guided, ethically, in the process of editing and publication, by the recommendations of COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics), as well as by the basic guidelines formulated by CNPq (Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico). The journal is committed to the celerity of the editorial process, with the aim of providing agile and quality dissemination of scientific knowledge.

In line with the spirit and objectives of free access to editorial content, access to the RICP is offered to readers and academics free of charge, and its reproduction, in whole or in part, is authorized, provided that it is solely for educational and scientific purposes, and that the source and authorship credits are fully cited, according to the CC BY-NC 4.0 license (Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International).

1. Editorial Team duties

1.1 Article reviewing procedure

1.1.1 The articles are initially submitted to a previous formal suitability analysis (desk review), carried out by the editorial team, to verify compliance with formal submission requirements, absence of plagiarism, their suitability to the journal's editorial policy, and their feasibility for publication.

1.1.2 Subsequently, the articles are referred to two reviewers for content review, according to the double-blind peer-review system.

1.1.3 All of RICP's activities are guided by excellence in the content of the manuscripts and by freedom of expression, with no censorship or restrictions based on the political or ideological ties of the authors, or any other form of discrimination, as long as they do not incite the practice of violent acts.

1.1.4 It is possible for editors to publish articles and reviews, as long as they do not participate in any stage of the reviewing process and the anonymity of the reviewers is assured.

1.2 Decision regarding publication

1.2.1 Along with the double-blind peer-review system, in exceptional cases, RICP may accept papers from invited authors when it considers their scientific contribution of great relevance to the topic in question.

1.3 Confidentiality

1.3.1 The editor-in-chief, the members of the editorial board and other members ensure the confidentiality and secrecy of information about the submission of articles, sharing it only with the authors themselves, reviewers, potential reviewers, members of the editorial board and editorial staff of RICP, and external quality control agencies, on the occasion of authorship.

1.3.2 The use of privileged information or ideas obtained through the manuscript submission process is prohibited, and the editors may not use them for personal gain or that of third parties.

1.4 Correction of Errors

The editor or editorial board member who verifies, from any source, the existence of significant errors in the manuscripts, is committed to signal the issue so that the retraction and/or correction of the article can be made.

2. Authors’ duties

2.1 Authorship and co-authorship

2.1.1 The identification of the authors, as well as information on funding, honoraria or other benefits received for the research or preparation of the text should be included in the text, even if in a footnote. These elements, however, as well as any acknowledgments that may be added to the body of the text upon submission should appear only in the authors' records and in the editors' comments box. This ensures that the reviewers do not identify the authorship of the texts.

2.1.2 An author is one who has participated in the work, taking public responsibility for its content. Participation includes: the writing of the work or the critical revision during the course of the text; the conception, delineation or restructuring of ideas, as well as the analysis and interpretation of the data collected.

2.1.3 All those who have significantly contributed to the work should be listed as co-authors. Thus, when the publication deals with results obtained through collective research, the contribution and consent of all contributors must be certified.

2.1.4 The mere collection of data, as well as the mere provision of financial and infrastructure resources, does not legitimize authorship. However, participation and assistance in relevant moments of the research should be duly indicated, preferably in a footnote in acknowledgement.

2.2 References, sources and data

2.2.1 Authors must indicate all the references that have influenced their work. References (law, doctrine, case law etc.) should contain all necessary data for their proper identification and location, allowing third parties to replicate the steps taken by the authors. In citations of Internet sites, the link and date of access must be indicated.

2.2.2 Information obtained privately, such as in personal conversations, correspondence, or discussions with third parties, should not be used or transcribed, except as authorized by the corresponding sources, with written consent required - which must be sent along with the submitted paper.

2.2.3 All sources of funding for the research must be disclosed and any existing conflicts of interest that may influence the research must be disclosed.

2.2.4 Any and all manipulation and/or modulation of the data, even statistical correction methods, must be identified and justified.

2.3 Previous, simultaneous or subsequent publications

2.3.1 Papers previously published in proceedings of scientific events will be considered unpublished as long as they present effective improvements from the debates developed. These improvements should be highlighted in the body of the submission e-mail to the Editorial Team.

2.3.2 Simultaneous submission of the same article to another scientific journal is forbidden during the reviewing process by RICP.

2.3.3 After the original publication in RICP, as long as authorized by the editorial team and with due reference to the original publication, the same article may be published in other information vehicles.

2.4 Possible conflicts of interest and errors

2.4.1 All authors must inform the team of any conflicts of interest that may have influenced the results and interpretation of the data.

2.4.2 If authors become aware of any significant errors in their article, they should immediately notify the RICP editorial team.

2.5 Copyright, Plagiarism and Self-Plagiarism

2.5.1 Plagiarism

It is forbidden to use phrases, quotes or concepts from other authors, from any source, without giving due credit, not excluding the cases in which it is public domain. Thus, when an idea is used in the work, it must be expressly credited, under penalty of being considered plagiarism.

2.5.2 Self-Plagiarism

It is forbidden to use phrases, text excerpts, arguments or conclusions that the author has already published in other written communication vehicles, even if in another language, without expressly stating in the text the reference of the previous work. Except in cases where the texts are in the public domain, it will be characterized as self-plagiarism.

2.5.3 Copyrights

2.5.3.1 Third-Party Copyright Infringement

By submitting their articles, authors assume full responsibility for their content. The editorial team of RICP disclaims any responsibility for the content of these papers (as well as opinions, transcripts, sources and data presented), and the party submitting the manuscript, consenting to the editorial terms and policies of RICP, shall indemnify the editors and third parties for any material or moral damages caused by copyright infringement, plagiarism, contradictory indication of authorship and inappropriate conduct of scientific research.

2.5.3.2 Right to articles

All material submitted for review and publication, as well as the copyrights attached to it, will be transferred to RICP. After the first publication, the authors may use the same results in other publications, clearly indicating that this journal was the medium of the original publication.

3. Reviewers' duties

3.1 Reviewing model

3.1.1 In keeping with the double-blind peer-review system, the articles are reviewed by peers who are unaware of both the author of the manuscript and the other reviewer who makes up the double-blind peer-review, or trio.

3.1.2 The reviews may contain technical and conceptual corrections, suggestions for arguments, for adding or subtracting data, for changing the structure and formatting of the text, and even bibliographic indications, when indispensable for the updating and reliability of the work.

3.1.3 Changes may be proposed as a mere suggestion or as a condition for publication. In the latter case, according to the nature of the condition imposed and possible justifications from the author, its compliance may be waived by the editorial team.

3.2 Reviewers' availability

3.2.1 All reviewers have the duty to meet the deadlines established for the reviews of the articles received. If the reviewer is not available for such an act, he/she must inform the team as soon as he/she receives the request.

3.2.2 Any reviewer who is selected and does not feel comfortable reviewing a particular article, either because he/she does not feel qualified to review it or for other personal or technical reasons, should inform the Editor-in-Chief or the editorial team as soon as the request is received.

3.3 Confidentiality

3.3.1 All papers received for review should be treated as confidential documents, and should not be shown to or discussed with third parties, nor used for personal gain, and this extends to any information and ideas gained through the review process.

3.4 Objectivity

The reviewers must conduct the reviews objectively, expressing their notes clearly, and with sufficient and reasonable justifications. Therefore, the use of excessive criticism, which transcends the work to reach the author's decorum, is forbidden.

3.5 Sources evaluation

3.5.1 The reviewers may, if necessary for the completeness and reliability of the reviewed article, identify works relevant to the topic that were not cited by the authors and indicate them for citation. Every previously existing statement in the literature must be accompanied by a relevant and pertinent citation.

3.5.2 The reviewer should always alert the editorial team to substantial similarities or overlaps between the article and any other publication of which they are aware, as well as any other possible copyright violations.

3.6 Conflict of Interest

Reviewers should not review manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competition, collaboration, or other connections.

4. Analysis and selection of works

4.1 Once the paper is received, the authors will be immediately informed. The editors will conduct a desk review of the material and formal elements, absence of plagiarism, as well as the novelty, originality and relevance of the article.

4.2 Once the minimum requirements are met, the review will be done by the double-blind peer-review system. For this purpose, any elements that may indicate authorship will be removed from the text and sent to two anonymous reviewers who may approve (with or without the imposition of conditions) or reject the paper. In case of disagreement between the original reviewers, the paper will be forwarded to a third reviewer.

4.3 The reviews have the purpose of supporting the decision of the responsible editor, who can decide otherwise, as long as he explains in detail his arguments for approving or disapproving the work.

4.4 The result of the analysis will be informed to the authors, who will have unrestricted access to the anonymous reviews.

4.5 If the article is approved, with or without conditions, the editors will evaluate the pertinence and opportunity for publication. The final decision on the publication of the text will be made exclusively by the editors of RICP.

4.6 In addition to the double-blind peer-review system, in exceptional cases, papers by invited authors will be accepted when their scientific contribution is considered highly relevant to the journal's scope.

4.7 The publication of book reviews will be subject to the open peer review model, to be performed by one or more editors.

4.8 Each volume will publish up to 20 (twenty) articles and 4 (four) book reviews, divided into two issues, with the end of each semester.

4.9 For exogeny purposes, each issue should include articles from a minimum of 1/5 (one fifth) of authors linked to foreign HEIs (higher education institutions) and a maximum of 1/4 (one fourth) of authors linked to HEIs from Minas Gerais.