Statement of Ethics and Good Publication Practices

DECLARATION OF ETHICS AND GOOD PRACTICES IN THE PUBLICATION

A Qualitative Research Journal, RPQ, of the Society for Qualitative Studies and Research, is grounded in the highest principles and standards of ethics in scientific publishing. These principles align with those provided by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), and we are committed to upholding them.

It is the duty of the authors to:

  • Ensure consensus among all co-authors in approving the final version of the article and its subsequent submission to the Qualitative Research Journal for publication.
  • Refrain from submitting the same article simultaneously to more than one publication and from submitting multiple similar and/or less relevant manuscripts based on the same research (salami slicing of publications).
  • Limit the list of authors exclusively to those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution, and interpretation of the reported study, excluding ghost authors and 'guests.' Individuals who have participated only in certain aspects of the research project should be acknowledged in the text only as contributors.
  • Present work conducted rigorously, including an objective discussion of its significance. The underlying research data must be accurately represented in the article. Fabricated or falsified data and intentionally inaccurate or fraudulent statements constitute unethical and unacceptable behavior, leading the Editorial Board to follow COPE flowcharts, including requesting employers of the authors, institutions where the research was conducted, funding bodies, or an appropriate body to initiate an investigation.
  • Refrain from taking ideas or work from other authors without giving proper credit. Including even a sentence from another person's manuscript, or one's own, without adequate citation is considered plagiarism and constitutes a crime, as stipulated in Law 9.610 (Copyright Law) and Article 184 of the Brazilian Penal Code. Reviewers are vigilant for redundant publication (salami slicing of publications) and plagiarism, and the Editorial Board of the Qualitative Research Journal uses computerized tools to detect them. Suspected cases of misconduct will be handled in accordance with COPE flowcharts.
  • Disclose any potential financial conflicts of interest or other relevant conflicts for all authors when submitting a work.
  • Immediately notify the Editorial Board of the Qualitative Research Journal if a significant error or any inaccuracies are detected in their own published work and cooperate with the Editorial Board to correct it or, if unavoidable, withdraw the article from publication.

It is the duty of the reviewers to:

  • Immediately inform the Editorial Board of the Qualitative Research Journal if they do not feel qualified to analyze the research described in the article or know that their evaluations cannot meet the defined deadlines, allowing for the identification of alternative reviewers.
  • Refrain from evaluating articles in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions related to them, promptly informing the Editorial Board of the Qualitative Research Journal to identify alternative reviewers.
  • Structure their reviews objectively and constructively, with comments written clearly and courteously, based on scientific arguments that support them, so that authors can use them to improve their article.
  • Evaluate articles solely based on their content and independently of any other factors such as race, age, gender, ethnic origin, sexual orientation, disability, religious belief, nationality, political orientation, or social class of the authors.
  • Treat all articles received in the context of peer review as confidential documents and maintain the confidentiality of any privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review, never using them for personal gain.
  • Immediately inform the Editorial Board of the Qualitative Research Journal if they identify any violation of publication ethics by the authors of the work under their evaluation, including cases of suspected plagiarism or redundant publication (salami slicing of publications).

It is the duty of the editors to:

  • Ensure that the peer review process for articles submitted to the Qualitative Research Journal is anonymous (double-blind peer review), fair, and impartial, and that all information related to them, including the identities of authors and reviewers, remains confidential, except in cases of pre-agreed open review.
  • Ensure that all articles and research reviews are evaluated by two anonymous reviewers, competent in the research area of the work, and free from competing interests, respecting author requests that a particular individual not review their submission, if well-founded and practical.
  • Request reviewers to be vigilant about ethical issues and potential research and publication flaws, including unethical research design, insufficient details about patient consent or protection of research subjects, and improper data manipulation and presentation, plagiarism, and redundant publication (salami slicing of publications).
  • Require reviewers to disclose any potential conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions related to them before accepting or reviewing a submission. Ensure that readers are informed about these conflicts and correct the publication if conflicting interests are revealed after publication.
  • Maintain systems to detect plagiarized text when suspicions arise.
  • Ensure that the acceptance or rejection of a document for publication is based solely on the importance, originality, clarity, validity, and relevance of the study to the scope of the Qualitative Research Journal. Seek assurances that all research has been approved by an appropriate research ethics committee, when applicable, in compliance with current legislation, namely, CNS Resolution 466 of April 12, 2012 (Ethics in Research with Human Subjects) and CNS Resolution 510 of April 7, 2016 (Ethics in Research in Human and Social Sciences). Other references can be found in the E-book: Ethics and Research in Education, available at: https://econtents.bc.unicamp.br/boletins/index.php/ppec/article/view/9408/4840 and in the Qualitative Research Journal itself, Volume 9, Number 22, available at: https://doi.org/10.33361/RPQ.v.9.n.22.
  • Ensure that authors have a mechanism for appealing editorial decisions and be always willing to publish corrections, clarifications, retractions, and apologies when necessary, justifying any significant deviation from the described evaluation processes.
  • Regularly publish and review instructions for authors and reviewers and provide details on how they handle cases of suspected misconduct, such as COPE flowcharts.
  • Monitor the performance of reviewers and take measures to ensure the highest standards, with qualified and aligned reviewers with the Qualitative Research Journal. Suspend and even exclude from the reviewer panel those who consistently produce discourteous, low-quality, or late reviews. Add new reviewers as needed, using a wide range of sources (not just personal contacts) to identify potential new reviewers, such as author suggestions and bibliographic databases.
  • In case of suspicion or allegation of misconduct, both regarding published works and those still under evaluation, act in accordance with COPE flowcharts:
  • Avoid simply rejecting documents that raise concerns about possible misconduct.
  • Request a response from those suspected of misconduct. If the response is unsatisfactory, request employers of the authors, institutions where the research was conducted, funding bodies, or an appropriate body to initiate an investigation.
  • Make all reasonable efforts to ensure that a proper investigation is conducted into the alleged misconduct.
  • Take responsibility for everything published in the Qualitative Research Journal and defend freedom of expression while preventing commercial interests from compromising the journal's ethical standards.

Procedures for dealing with suspected misconduct

To detect possible plagiarism, authors are required to submit a plagiarism report for all submitted manuscripts produced by software such as CopySpider© and Plagiarism©, etc. In case of suspected plagiarism, the evaluation process will be halted, and authors will be asked to provide clarifications.

Misconduct and unethical behavior such as plagiarism, redundancy (duplicate publication), fabricated data, conflicts of interest, or ethical problems (e.g., violation of protected patents, experiments with animals or humans without proper ethical rigor) can be identified and brought to the editor's attention at any time by anyone.

Anyone reporting such conduct to the editor must provide sufficient information and evidence for an investigation to be initiated. All allegations must be taken seriously and treated in the same manner until a final decision or conclusion is reached.

In the event of detection or suspicion before or after the manuscript's publication, the editors of the Qualitative Research Journal are responsible for taking actions in accordance with the guidelines recommended by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), available at: https://publicationethics.org/files/Full set of English flowcharts_9Nov2016.pdf and the current legislation in Brazil: CNS Resolution 466 of April 12, 2012 (Ethics in Research with Human Subjects) and CNS Resolution 510 of April 7, 2016 (Ethics in Research in Human and Social Sciences).

If plagiarism, redundancy, fabricated data, conflicts of interest, or ethical problems are proven in any published article, the Qualitative Research Journal is exempt from any responsibility, and authors will be subject to all legal penalties provided by law for the irregularities committed by them.

In the case of misconduct detection, depending on the type and severity of the case, authors may face one or more of the following penalties:

  • Be formally clarified about any misunderstandings that led to deviations in conduct.
  • Be mentioned in a formal notice or editorial of the journal detailing the misconduct.
  • Have the case formally reported to the author's institution or funding agency for misconduct.
  • Be prevented from submitting new manuscripts to the journal.
  • Have the case formally reported to a professional organization or higher authority for further investigations and actions.

Policies on data sharing

The Qualitative Research Journal adheres to a policy that encourages the sharing of research data, ensuring it does not violate the privacy of participants or other relevant ethical considerations.

Why Share Data? 

Data is a key outcome of research activities, and all data used in an article must be properly cited, similar to citing scientific journal articles, figures, or conference presentations, even if authored by the researcher themselves.

There is a global trend where funding agencies increasingly make data sharing a requirement. It is also becoming more common for some fields to publicly release research data, ensuring transparency and reproducibility.

Benefits of Data Sharing:

  • Enhances the robustness of the research process publicly, supporting validation, research transparency, and the replication and verification of results, thereby advancing scientific discovery and knowledge.
  • Facilitates collaboration and may lead to data reuse, providing greater opportunities for meta-analyses and extracting new results.
  • Depositing data in a repository with a permanent identifier, such as a Digital Object Identifier (DOI), allows authors to cite the dataset, ensuring researchers receive due credit for their work.
  • Ensures long-term preservation of data.
  • Helps track the impact and reuse of datasets.
  • Aids readers in better understanding the work.
  • Public availability of research data supports the translation of research into practice.
  • Increases the discoverability of the work.

Statements and Types of Sharing:

  • Data sharing is not applicable to this article as no new data was created or analyzed in this study.
  • The data supporting the results of this study will be made available by the corresponding author, [initials of corresponding author], upon reasonable request.
  • The data supporting the results of this study is available as 'supplementary files' on the Qualitative Research Journal website.
  • The data supporting the results of this study is available for viewing only at [site name] via the link [list resources and URLs], but cannot be reused.
  • The data supporting the results of this study is openly available on [repository name] through the DOI http://doi.org/[doi]. These data were derived from the following publicly available resources: [list resources and URLs] [if applicable].
  • The data supporting the results of this study is openly available on [repository name] through the DOI http://doi.org/[doi] in a format that can be read and processed automatically by a computer. These data were derived from the following publicly available resources: [list resources and URLs] [if applicable].

Sources: Education Mathematics Research Magazine (Pontifical Catholic University of São Paulo, PUC) and Práxis Educativa (State University of Ponta Grossa, Paraná, Brazil)