Ethics Policy and Good Practice Statement

Revista Opinião Jurídica reinforces its commitment to scientific values and ethics and expects irreproachable behavior from all those involved in the publication process.

Based on the recommendations of Web of Science, Elsevier, and the COPE Principles on Transparency and Best Practices in Academic Publishing, whose 3rd version has been in force since January 2018, Revista Opinião Jurídica presents its Ethics Policy and Statement on Good Practices:

1. Editorial Board

The composition of the Editorial Board of Opinião magazine can be viewed via the link Cover > About the magazine > Editorial Team.

Contact with the Editorial Team will preferably be by e-mail, using the addresses opiniaojuridica01@unichristus.edu.br, with a copy to secretaria.oj@unichristus.edu.br. Other contact information is available via the link Cover > About the journal > Contact.

2. Editor's duties:

The editors will evaluate articles solely on their merit and academic value and will take timely and reasonable action about complaints regarding articles submitted to or published in the journal. The editors will also observe the following:

Publication decision: it is up to the editorial board to decide which articles submitted to the journal will be published, respecting the policies of the Editorial Board. Editorial policies will comply with legal requirements regarding defamation, copyright, and plagiarism. The editor may consult the Editorial Board and the referees to make decisions.
Confidentiality: the editor and the entire editorial team must keep submitted manuscripts confidential, except for disclosing only the necessary information to referees and editorial
Transparency and respect: the editor must not make any distinction based on the race, sex, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, nationality, or political philosophy of the
Conflicts of interest and disclosure: the editor must not disclose any unpublished material or information obtained through his/her research or submitted manuscripts without the prior, express, and written authorization of the authors. The editor must refuse to evaluate manuscripts in which he/she has a conflict of interest due to competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or (possibly) institutions linked to the
Cooperation in investigations: the editor must take all appropriate measures regarding ethical complaints about a submitted manuscript or published

3. Duties of peer reviewers:

Evaluators must treat all work they receive for evaluation as confidential and evaluate it objectively and constructively. The evaluators will also observe the following:

Contribution to editorial decisions: the reviewers' work and analysis should help the editor make editorial decisions and can help authors improve their
Confidentiality: the workers reviewed are confidential documents and may not be shared or discussed with third Ideas obtained through the evaluation process must not be communicated or used for personal advantage.
Standards of objectivity: reviewers must present their analysis in a clear and objective manner, based on duly explained
On sources: reviewers must inform the editor of any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript analyzed and another published work of which they are aware. Reviewers must also indicate published works that are relevant to the research and have not been indicated by the
Punctuality and transparency: if the referees do not feel able to carry out a particular evaluation or are not available to do so, they should inform the editorial team as soon as
Disclosure and conflicts of interest: referees should not analyze manuscripts with which they have conflicts of interest due to competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions linked to the manuscripts. Conflicts of interest of any kind should be reported promptly to the editors.

4. Publisher's duties:

The publisher is committed to ensuring that advertising, reprinting, or any other source of commercial revenue has no impact or influence on editorial decisions. Manuscripts are evaluated by peers in a blind review process to guarantee the quality of the publication. Period uses software to identify plagiarism (Plagius - Plagiarism Detector 2.6.11).

5. Authors' duties

Authors must ensure that their work is original and unpublished and presents an objective and precise discussion, with a clear indication of sources, references, and complementary data. The document must contain sufficient detail and references to enable others to replicate the work. Fraudulent or intentionally inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable.

Before submitting the article to the journal, the authors responsible for sending it must make sure that all the authors are aware of the final version of the work and accept its submission. Authors should also note the following:

Originality and plagiarism: authors must ensure that manuscripts are entirely original and that works by other authors used in the research are duly All works cited in the work submitted for publication must be duly referenced. Plagiarism will not be tolerated and constitutes a serious breach of ethics.
Multiple or redundant publications: an author should not publish manuscripts that essentially describe the same research in more than one journal. Revista Opinião Jurídica aims to publish and disseminate unpublished work, and the author must state, under penalty of law, any conditions to the contrary when submitting their work. In the event of a previous publication, the author must explain the publication vehicle and the medium used (virtual or printed), so that the team of Institutional Editors can make a sovereign decision on the suitability of any
Concurrent submission: the concurrent submission of the same article to several journals constitutes unethical behavior and will not be
Subsequent republishing of the article: once published in Revista Opinião Jurídica, the article must not be republished in the same language as its original version in other online journals, to avoid losing any citations that would have gone to its original vehicle. Other forms of subsequent republishing will be permitted, provided that there is an express reference to the link of the original publication with all its data duly mentioned on the first page of the respective
About sources: the work of other authors should always be referenced and acknowledged. Authors should cite publications that were important in the research. Information obtained privately, such as in a conversation, correspondence, or discussion with a third party, should not be used or reported without the explicit written permission of the source. Information obtained through confidential services should not be used without the explicit written permission of the author of the work involved in these services. References must consist of all the works cited in the article and must be listed following ABNT-NBR-6023/2018.
Authorship: authorship of the work should be restricted to those who contributed significantly to the conception and execution of the All those who have made significant contributions should be listed as co-authors. People who participated in certain aspects of the research project should be listed as collaborators. In the case of a plurality of authors, all must have made a significant contribution to the research. The lead author must ensure that all appropriate co-authors are included in the article. The lead author must also ensure that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the manuscript and that they have agreed to its submission for publication.
Disclosure and conflicts of interest: all authors must disclose in the manuscript any financial or other conflicts that could influence the results or interpretation of their All sources of financial support for the project, such as work from research funded by funding agencies, must be disclosed.
Fundamental errors in published work: when an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in their published work, the author must immediately inform the Editorial Office and cooperate with the editor to correct the

Authors who violate the above duties are subject to sanctions, depending on the seriousness of the violation, such as warnings, being barred from processing and publishing articles by Revista Opinião Jurídica, as authors or co-authors, for a period of up to 4 (four) years, or even retractions, by the retraction policy (see conditions for submission).

The team must notify applicants, authors, and co-authors, if any, of the above sanctions as soon as it becomes aware of the violation. In the event of being barred from processing and publishing articles, the period of up to 4 (four) years will be counted from the date of the respective notification.

* This statement is based on the recommendations of Web of Science, Elsevier, and the Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors of the Committee on Publication Ethics - COPE.

Principles of Transparency and Good Practice in Academic Publishing - COPE:

Portuguese: https://publicationethics.org/resources/guidelines/princ%C3%ADpios-de- transpar%C3%AAncia-e-boas-pr%C3%A1ticas-em-publica%C3%A7%C3%B5es- acad%C3%AAmicas

English: https://publicationethics.org/resources/guidelines-new/principles-transparency-and- best-practice-scholarly-publishing

Spanish: https://publicationethics.org/resources/guidelines/principios-de-transparencia-y- mejores-pr%C3%A1cticas-en-publicaciones-acad%C3%A9micas