Based on the principles of a Democratic Rule of Law, designed to ensure the exercise of social and individual rights, freedom, security, well-being, development, equality and justice, without any form of discrimination, including by gender, race, sexual orientation, ethnic origin, religious belief, and considering the guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics - COPE and the Publishing Ethics Resource Kit - PERK/Elsevier which aim to encourage identification of plagiarism, bad practices, fraud or possible ethical violations, and in accordance with Law No. 9,610, of February 19, 1998, which consolidates copyright legislation in Brazil, RBCP adopts the following conducts:


a) Author:


- Articles submitted to the RBCP must indicate how each of the co-authors collaborated with the scientific production.
- After submission, any change in the article's authorship (removal, inclusion or substitution of names) will be, exceptionally, appreciated by the Editorial Committee.


b) Detection of similarities:


- The detection of similarity between texts is part of the RBCP editorial process, however it is up to the author to submit only academic or scientific production that meets the criteria of originality and originality, including assuming the commitment that the work was not submitted or is in analysis in another journal, except when it is a certified repository for pre-print or post-print deposit;
- In case the text submitted to the RBCP is development of a previous production, the information must be included in the comments to the editor during the submission process. In this case, the editorial team may request the necessary changes or exclude the work from the editorial process;
- In case of detection of illicit similarities, either through anti-plagiarism software or another procedure, according to art. 184 of the Penal Code, the work must be immediately returned to the author, even before being forwarded for scientific peer review. Depending on the case, the institution where the research was carried out and the funding agency (if any) will also be communicated.
- The detection of illicit similarity makes the publication of the work in the RBCP unfeasible or, if detected after publication, will result in the need for public retraction;


c) Guidelines for article retraction


- During the editorial process, authors are co-responsible for correcting any mistakes in the text, and must notify RBCP for further correction before, during or after publication;
- Retraction is a public instrument to record and/or correct problems with a published article or communicate its cancellation.
- A letter of retraction is required when an error is detected after publication. In this case, the error must be clarified in a transparent manner and a corresponding apology presented to the academic community.
- A public retraction will be necessary when:
i) there is evidence of fraud, either through misconduct (e.g.: fabrication of data) or by fault (e.g.: miscalculation or in the experiment);
ii) there is plagiarism or duplicity;
iii) it is unethical research.
- The justifications for the retraction must be expressly included in the retraction notices, including identifying who is retracting the article. Notices will be published in the electronic and printed versions of the journal and must include the title of the article and the respective authors.
- The pictured article is not excluded from the vehicle where it was originally published. In the html/xml version, only the message with the justification sent by the editor will be published. The original PDF is retained, but with the disclaimer text appended before the original full text. The file will contain watermark strips that will make its use unfeasible, making it difficult to read.
-In any event, the detected similarity will imply the impossibility of a new submission to the RBCP by the same author, including co-authorship, for a period of 24 months and, even so, as long as he presents a public retraction for the error;


d) Simultaneous submissions of the same work in more than one journal:


- As stated in the item “Submission conditions” (Guidelines for authors) on the RBCP website, by submitting a work, authors agree that the contribution is original and unpublished, and is not being evaluated for publication by another journal.


e) Secrecy:


- The desk review and blind review steps are carried out with the names of the authors of the papers omitted.
- The author is advised not to identify the academic or scientific production file with the names of the authors and must observe the instructions available in "Ensuring peer review s blind” (blind peer review).
- In order to guarantee impartiality and preserve the originality of the material, scientific reviewers must undertake not to discuss with third parties the article that is under their responsibility;
- Reviewers are instructed to inform the editor if they suspect that the author's identity is known to them;
- Violation of the blind peer review rule implies the possibility of exclusion from the RBCP reviewer database
- Editors should avoid sending invitations to reviewers who work in the same department of the same institution as the authors or who have already been co-authors at some point;
- Editors must commit not to divulge any information during the evaluation process of the article under their responsibility.


f) Conflict of interests


- Doubts related to ethical issues about the submission and publication process, which cannot be remedied on the RBCP website, must be resolved in the email [email protected];
- Any financial conflicts involving the scientific production process must be expressly mentioned, including sources of research funding;


g) Ethics in research


- Research ethics includes consistency in the methodology with the intended objectives, as well as respect for human and animal rights, and must be preserved throughout the process of writing and evaluating the results;
- All data used in the scientific production necessary for the peer review process or the editorial process must be made available, in order to verify the compatibility between the general and specific objectives, the research methodology and the results achieved, including their reproducibility under the same conditions;
- The detection of fraud in the submitted work, either by omission or data manipulation, with the objective of inducing results; by calculation error or in the experiment, it will imply the notification of the author(s) for presentation of the pertinent justifications. Depending on the case, when bad faith is proven, the institution where the research was carried out and the funding agency (if any) will also be communicated. If feasible, the editorial team may request adjustments to the research or exclude the work from the editorial process.