The credibility and success of a scientific journal depend, to a great extent, on the prior evaluation system, contributing decisively to attracting good authors and better quality of the knowledge to be disseminated. In the case of e³, the evaluation procedure is ensured by the process designated by scientific arbitration or peer review, to guarantee the transparency of this process and generate a relationship of trust between the editors and the authors. e3 has an exclusive commitment to knowledge, being independent of politics and economics. The editorial statute only defines the scope and field of activity of the journal, but e³ is an uncommitted publication and open to innovating in relation to established scientific paradigms.

This code defines a set of principles and guidelines for ethical conduct adopted by e³. Best Practices are ambitious and are developed in response to problems of an ethical nature. e3 inspires this code in the guidelines established by the Committee on Publication Ethics COPE;  Declaration of Helsinki WMA; International Committee of Medical Journal Editors ICMJE; Animal Research: Reporting of In Vivo Experiments ARRIVE. This code defines the responsibilities of all parties involved in the act of publishing e³.    

DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES

1. Ethical and moral values that guide Revista de Economia, Empresas e Empreendedores na CPLP (e³) - General duties and responsibilities of the e³ Journal

1.1. The e3 Journal and Ponteditora are responsible for implementing the Code of Ethics and good practices in relation to all manuscripts received and material published in the journal. This means that the Scientific Council (SC) of the e³ journal must:

   - support freedom of expression;

   - seek to meet the needs of readers and authors;

   - adopt procedures that guarantee the quality of the published material;

   - be available to publish corrections, clarifications, and apologize, when justified.

The e3 Journal’s Good Practices include:

   1. encouraging and being aware of peer-reviewed research and publish and re-evaluate the journal's processes in the light of new guidelines;

   2. actively listening to the opinions of authors, readers, reviewers and members of the SC on ways to improve the journal's editorial procedures;

   3. supporting training initiatives in the field of conduct and ethics of research and publication;

   4. evaluating the effects of the journal's policies on the behavior of authors and reviewers and review them, whenever necessary, encouraging responsible behavior and discouraging inappropriate conduct.

 

2. Relationship of the e³ journal with the readers

2.1. The e³ Journal must inform about the sources of funding for research for published works.

The e³ Journal’s Good Practices include:

   1. ensuring that all publications are reviewed by qualified reviewers;

   2. establishing processes that encourage the rigor, integrity and clarity of the investigation;

   3. adopting criteria for attribution of authorship that promote good practices, that is, make it clear who did the work, discouraging misconduct (example: ghost authors);

   4. informing about the measures taken to ensure that the submissions of works proposed by members of the Journal or the SC are evaluated in an objectively and impartially.

 

3.Relationship of the e³ Journal with the authors:

3.1. The e³ Journal’s decisions regarding the approval / rejection of a manuscript for publication are based on the importance of the research work, its originality and clarity and the validity of the study, as well as its relevance for the journal;

3.2. The Scientific Council (SC) of the e³ Journal does not reverse the approval decisions for submissions, unless there are some serious problems with the submission;

3.3. Unless serious problems are identified, the SC should not override publication decisions made by the Editors-in-Chiefs;

3.4. A description of the peer review process is available and the e³ journal justifies any major deviations that occur in the process;

3.5. The author(s) are allowed to appeal to the Editors-in-Chiefs or the management against an opinion unfavorable to the publication, presenting arguments. To ensure fairness, internal audits are provided for the reviewers' reports, regardless of the existence, or not, of resources. In this context, additional clarifications may be requested from reviewers, even in favorable decisions;

3.6. Authors can, if they so choose, know who the reviewers of their work were. Then, they can assess the competence of the reviewers and, if necessary, the existence of conflicts of interest that may affect the evaluation;

3.7. The e³ journal publishes guidelines for authors on all aspects that they should attend to.

The e³ journal’s Good Practices include:

   1. regularly reviewing the instructions for authors;

   2. publishing relevant conflicts of interest for all authors and publishing corrections if conflicts of interest are identified after publication;

   3. ensuring that reviewers are chosen on the basis of academic training, experience and professional competence, which demonstrate, on the whole, the skills to review the submitted manuscripts;

   4. respecting the requests of the authors about people who should not review their submission, if they are well-founded and practicable;

   5. disseminating information about how the journal deals with suspected cases of misconduct;

   6. publishing the dates for submission and approval of the manuscripts.

 

4.Relationship of the e³ journal with the reviewers

4.1. Reviewers are required to thoroughly review all manuscripts and be free from any prejudice. The review form should highlight the aspects that underlie the decision, and, in the event of an opinion unfavorable to the publication of the manuscript (rejection), highlight the weaknesses of the text and suggest ways to bridge them in future submissions;

4.2. The e³ journal provides guidance to reviewers about what is expected of them, including the need to deal confidentially with the submitted material;

4.3. The e³ journal asks reviewers to indicate potential conflicts of interest, before an agreement for the review of an article is established. Despite a previous selection of reviewers, they can always decline the invitation to evaluate the manuscript, if they feel, for some reason, unable to revise the text;

4.4. The e³ journal has systems to guarantee the protection of the identity of the reviewers.

The e³ Journal’s Good Practices include:

   1. encouraging comments on the originality of submissions and paying attention to redundant publication and plagiarism;

   2. encouraging comments on ethical issues, as well as research and publication misconduct that arise in submissions;

  3.sending reviewers' comments to authors, unless they contain offensive or unfounded observations;

   4. publicly acknowledging the reviewers' contribution to the journal;

   5. monitoring the performance of the peer review and taking steps to ensure its high standard and search to obtain from its reviewers a commitment to the fulfillment of the review deadlines;

   6. developing and maintaining a database of suitable reviewers and updating it based on their performance. Annually, the e³ analyzes the average review deadlines;

   7. ensuring that the reviewers' database reflects the journal's profile and, whenever necessary, adding new members;

   8. using a wide range of sources to identify potential new reviewers.

   9. reviews should contribute to increasing the quality of publications, helping to qualitatively differentiate the e³.

 

5.Relationship of the e³ Journal with the members of the Scientific Council (SC)

5.1. The e³ journal provides new members of the SC with guidelines on their roles and must keep up-to-date with new revision policies and developments.

The e³ journal's Good Practices include:

   1. maintaining policies and procedures that guarantee impartiality in dealing with submissions;

   2. identifying duly qualified people for the SC who can actively contribute to the development of the journal;

   3. regularly reviewing the composition of the SC;

   4. periodic consultations with members of the SC on the operation of the journal, informing them of any changes in editorial policy and identifying future challenges;

   5. providing guidance to SC members on their roles and duties, which may include:

     - support and promotion of the journal;

     - looking for good works (e.g., from summaries of scientific meetings);

     - review of submissions to the journal;

     - approval of requests to write editorials, reviews and comments on articles in your area of expertise;

     - participation and contribution to the meetings of the SC.

 

6.The relationship of the e³ Journal with Ponteditora, as the entity that owns the Journal

6.1. The relationship between the e³ journal's SC and Ponteditora is based on the principle of editorial independence;

6.2. The Editors-in-Chiefs decides which manuscripts to publish based on their quality and suitability for the journal, without interference from Ponteditora and those responsible for them;

The e³ journal's Good Practices include:

1. establishing mechanisms to deal with disagreements between the SC and Ponteditora;
2. communicating regularly with Ponteditora, informing about the journal's results, successes and issues.

 

7.Editorial and double-anonymous peer review processes

The purpose of the assessment is to help authors improve the quality of their work by providing constructive and timely assessments prepared by experienced academics. e³ considers the evaluation process as a fundamental step for the improvement of the manuscripts. For this reason, the reviewers of the e³ they are encouraged to present, in addition to the opinion on publication, suggestions for improvement regarding the content and form of the text.

The evaluation process of manuscripts submitted to e³ consists of two stages. The first, a preliminary evaluation by the Editors-in-Chiefs and the Assistants Editors, examines the adequacy of the work to the journal's editorial line and makes the preliminary evaluation (Desk Review). The second, the review itself, consists of the double-blind review system or open peer review to be carried out by two ad hoc reviewers.

7.1. The e³ journal strives to ensure that double-anonymous peer review or open peer review is fair, impartial and timely.

7.2. The e³ journal has systems in place to ensure that submitted material remains confidential while it is under review.

The e³ journal's Good Practices include:

   1. encouraging appropriate training for people involved in the editorial process (including themselves) and ensuring that they are properly informed about the latest guidelines and recommendations regarding anonymous or open peer review and the management of journals;

   2. staying informed about the peer review processes and their technological advances;

   3. adopting the methods of double-anonymous or open peer review most suitable for the journal and for the scientific and academic community;

   4. periodically reviewing peer review practices in order to improve them.

 

8.Quality assurance

8.1. The e³ journal's SC takes all necessary measures to guarantee the quality of the material it publishes.

The e³ journal's Good Practices include:

   1. determining procedures and systems for detecting falsified data (e.g., plagiarism). The review considers, primarily, the scientific quality of the text, focusing on the following aspects:

     a) Topicality of the topic;

     b) Originality of the work;

     c) Relevance and theoretical consistency of the text for the development of the area of knowledge;

     d) Quality of the theoretical framework used;

    e)Quality of writing and organization of the text;

     f) Contribution of work to administrative knowledge and / or administrative action in organizations;

     g) Methodology used: property, quality, level of sophistication;

     h) Quality of data analysis and discussion (if applicable);

     i) Conclusions: achievement, foundation and consistency.

   2. basing decisions about the journal's style standards on relevant evidence to increase the quality of communication (e.g., adopting structured abstracts), and not simply on aesthetic foundations or personal preferences.

 

9.Protection of individual data

9.1. The e³ journal guarantees the confidentiality of individual information obtained in the course of research interactions.

The e³ journal's Good Practices include:

   1. disclosing its policy of publishing individual data (for example, personal details or identifiable images) and, whenever necessary, explaining it clearly to the authors.

 

10.Encourage research ethics

10.1. The e³ journal seeks to ensure that published research is conducted in accordance with internationally accepted guidelines (COPE; WMA; ICMJE; ARRIVE);

10.2. Authors are required to comply with the best ethical practices in research and publications. The e³ journal promotes Good Practices in accordance with the COPE international standards for authors; For further details it is suggested that the author(s) consult the guidelines for authors;

10.3 The author(s) must declare all relevant financial or non-financial or personal interests for consideration during manuscript submission. The author may use the form made available by ICMJE to facilitate and standardize author disclosures. After completion, it should be submitted along with the manuscript. If the manuscript is published, this information will be communicated in a statement in the published article. For further details it is suggested that the author(s) consult the guidelines for authors,

10.4 The reviewer(s) must declare any potential conflict of interests when submitting their review report. They should inform the editor when reviews are requested and, if necessary, disqualify themselves from involvement in the evaluation of the manuscript. For further details, it is suggested that the author(s) consult the guidelines for authors;

10.5 The editor(s) who has(have) conflicts of interests or relationships that pose potential conflicts related to the papers under consideration should refrain from editorial decisions and pass them on to another colleague. For further details, it is suggested that the author(s) consult the guidelines for authors;

10.6. The e³ Journal seeks to guarantee that all research has been approved by an appropriate body, wherever relevant and appropriate. However, the e³ Journal recognizes that such approval does not guarantee that research is ethical.

The e³ journal's Good Practices include:

   1. requesting evidence of ethical approval of the research and asking authors about ethical aspects if concerns are raised or clarification is needed. For further details please consult the guidelines for authors.

 

11.Ensure the integrity of the academic record

11.1. Errors and inaccurate or misleading statements are promptly corrected.

The e³ journal's Good Practices include:

   1. ensuring that published texts are archived securely (e.g., via permanent online repositories);

   2. having an active system to give authors the opportunity to make original texts free of charge.

 

12.Encourage debate

12.1. The e³ journal encourages and is willing to consider convincing criticisms of the published work;

12.2. The authors of the criticized material have the opportunity to respond;

12.3. Studies that report negative results are not excluded.

The e³ journal's Good Practices include:

   1. opening to research that challenges works already published in the journal;

   2. responding promptly to complaints.

 

13. Article Retraction

e³ values research integrity and strives to maintain high standards of ethical conduct and quality in all its publications. We recognize that, in some circumstances, it may be necessary to reconsider the publication of an article that was previously accepted and published. Article retraction is a serious measure and is handled with utmost diligence to uphold the integrity of scientific literature.

13.1. Conditions for Retraction:

The retraction of an article may be considered in situations that include, but are not limited to, substantial error, plagiarism, data manipulation, research ethics violations, or other serious irregularities that compromise the validity and reliability of the article.

13.2. Retraction Procedure:

When a retraction request is received or when serious issues are identified in a published article, e³ will conduct a careful assessment of the situation. This will involve analyzing the presented evidence, consulting with relevant experts, and considering the policies and guidelines established by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and other relevant organizations.

13.3. Transparent Process:

The decision to retract an article is communicated transparently to all parties involved, including the authors of the article, reviewers, members of the Scientific Board, and readers. The specific reason for retraction will be thoroughly explained, and all stakeholders will be informed about the steps taken to ensure the correctness and transparency of the process.

13.4. Corrections and Amendments:

In some cases, minor errors or issues that do not compromise the overall validity of the article can be corrected through amendments or retractions. These corrections will be clearly communicated to the reader, maintaining transparency and honesty in the scientific record.

The e³ journal's Good Practices include:

1. promoting ethical conduct in research and publication and actively works to maintain the integrity of its journal;
2. addressing any concerns regarding the integrity of published articles with the seriousness and responsibility required to ensure the continued trust of our readers and authors.