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 a better quality of knowledge to be disseminated. In the case of RTIC, the evaluation procedure is ensured by the process designated by peer review, in order to ensure the transparency of this process and generate a relationship of trust between editors and authors. RTIC has an exclusive commitment to knowledge, being independent from politics and economics. The editorial statute only defines the scope and field of action of the journal, but RTIC is an uncommitted publication and open to innovation with regard to established scientific paradigms.

This code defines a set of principles and guidelines for ethical conduct adopted by RTIC. Good Practices are ambitious and are developed in response to problems of an ethical nature. RTIC inspires this code in the guidelines established by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE, Committee on Ethics in Publications, version of March 2011).

 

DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES

1.Ethical and moral values that guide RTIC – Journal of Technologies, Information and Communication

1.1. RTIC 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 RTIC must:

• support freedom of expression;
• try to meet the needs of readers and authors;
• adopt procedures that guarantee the quality of published material;
• make itself available to publish corrections, clarifications, and apologize, when justified.

 

The Good Practices of RTIC include:

1. encouraging and being aware of peer-reviewed research and publishing and re-evaluating journal processes in light of new guidelines;
2. actively listening to the opinions of authors, readers, reviewers and SC members on ways to improve the journal's editorial procedures;
3. supporting training initiatives in the scope 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 reviewing them, whenever necessary, encouraging responsible behavior and discouraging improper conduct.

 

2. Relationship of RTIC with the readers

2.1. RTIC must inform about the sources of research funding for published works.

 

The Good Practices of RTIC 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 authorship criteria that promote good practices, that is, make it very clear who authored the work, discouraging misconduct (example: ghost authors);
4. informing about the measures taken to ensure that paper submissions proposed by members of the journal or the SC are evaluated objectively and impartially.

 

3. Relationship of RTIC with the authors

3.1. The decisions of RTIC 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 to the journal;

3.2. The Scientific Council (SC) of RTIC does not reverse the approval decisions for submissions, unless there is some kind of serious problem with the submission;

3.3. Unless serious problems are identified, the SC shall not overturn publication decisions made by the Editors-in-Chief;

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

3.5. The author(s) is/are allowed to appeal an unfavorable opinion to the publication to the Editors-in-Chief or to the management, presenting arguments. To ensure fairness and justice, internal audits of the reviewers' reports are planned, 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. Subsequently, they can assess the competence of the reviewers and, if necessary, the existence of conflicts of interest that may affect the assessment;

3.7. RTIC publishes guidelines for authors on all aspects that they must attend to.

 

The Good Practices of RTIC include:

1. regularly reviewing instructions for authors;
2. publishing conflicts of interest relevant to all authors and publishing corrections if conflicts of interest are identified after publication;
3. ensuring that reviewers are chosen based on their academic background, experience and professional competence, who demonstrate, as a whole, the skills to review the submitted manuscripts;
4. respecting authors' requests about people who should not review their submission, if these are well-founded and practicable;
5. disclosing information about how the journal handles suspected cases of misconduct;
6. publishing the submission and approval dates of the manuscripts.

 

4. Relationship of RTIC with the reviewers

4.1. Reviewers are required to have a thorough appreciation of all manuscripts and be free from any bias. The review form must highlight the aspects that support 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 remedy them in future submissions;

4.2. RTIC provides guidance to reviewers on what is expected of them, including the need to handle submitted material confidentially;

4.3. RTIC asks reviewers to indicate potential conflicts of interest before agreeing to review an article. Notwithstanding a previous selection of reviewers, they can always decline the invitation to review the manuscript if they feel, for some reason, unable to review the text;

4.4. RTIC has systems to guarantee the protection of the identity of reviewers.

 

The Good Practices of RTIC include:

1. encouraging comments on the originality of submissions and paying attention to redundant publication and plagiarism;
2. encouraging comments on ethical issues and research and publication misconduct that arise in submissions;
3. sending the reviewers' comments to the authors, unless they contain offensive or unfounded remarks;
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 seeking to obtain from its reviewers a commitment to meeting the review deadlines;
6. developing and maintaining a database of suitable reviewers and updating it based on their performance. Annually, RTIC 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 RTIC;

 

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

5.1. RTIC provides new SC members with guidelines on their roles and must keep up to date with new review policies and developments.

 

The Good Practices of RTIC include:

1. maintaining policies and procedures that ensure impartiality in handling 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 SC members on the functioning of the newspaper, 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 work (e.g., from abstracts from scientific meetings);
• review of submissions to the journal;
• approval of requests to write editorials, reviews and comments on articles in their area of expertise;
• participation and contribution to SC meetings.

 

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

6.1. The relationship between the SC of RTIC and Ponteditora is based on the principle of editorial independence;

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

 

The Good Practices of RTIC include:

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

 

7. Editorial and double peer review processes

The purpose of evaluation is to help authors improve the quality of their work by providing constructive and timely evaluations prepared by experienced scholars. RTIC considers the evaluation process a fundamental step for the improvement of articles. For this reason, the reviewers of RTIC are encouraged to present, in addition to the opinion regarding the publication, suggestions for improvement regarding the content and form of the text.

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

7.1. RTIC strives to ensure that anonymous double or open peer review is fair, impartial and timely;

7.2. RTIC has systems in place to ensure that submitted material remains confidential while under review.

 

The Good Practices of RTIC 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 peer review processes and their technological advances;
3. adopting the methods of double-anonymous peer review or open peer review that are most appropriate for the journal and for the scientific and academic community;
4. periodically reviewing peer review practices to improve them.

 

8. Quality assurance

8.1. The SC of RTIC takes all reasonable steps to ensure the quality of the material it publishes.

 

The Good Practices of RTIC include:

1. determining procedures and systems for detecting falsified data (e.g., plagiarism). The review primarily considers the scientific quality of the text, focusing on the following aspects:
1. Theme topicality;
2. Originality of the work;
3. Relevance and theoretical consistency of the text for the development of the knowledge area;
4. Quality of the theoretical framework used;
5. Writing quality and text organization;
6. Contribution of work to administrative knowledge and/or administrative action in organizations;
7. Methodology used: property, quality, level of sophistication;
8. Quality of data analysis and discussion (if applicable);
9. Conclusions: achievement, foundation and coherence.

2. basing decisions about journal style norms on evidence relevant to improving the quality of communication (e.g., adopting structured abstracts), not simply on aesthetic grounds or personal preferences.

 

9. Protection of individual data

9.1. RTIC guarantees the confidentiality of individual information obtained in the course of investigative interactions.

 

The Good Practices of RTIC include:

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

 

10. Encourage research ethics

10.1. RTIC seeks to ensure that published research is carried out in accordance with internationally accepted guidelines;

10.2. RTIC seeks assurances that the entire investigation has been approved by an appropriate body, whenever relevant and applicable. However, RTIC recognizes that such approval does not guarantee that the investigation is ethical.

 

The Good Practices of RTIC include:

1. requesting evidence of ethical approval of the research and questioning authors about ethical aspects if concerns are raised or clarification is needed.

 

11. Ensure the integrity of the academic record

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

 

The Good Practices of RTIC include:

1. ensuring that published texts are securely archived (e.g. via permanent online repositories);
2. having an active system to give authors the opportunity to make the original texts available free of charge.

 

12. Encourage debate

12.1. RTIC encourages and is willing to consider well-founded criticisms of the published work;

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

12.3. Studies reporting negative results are not excluded.

 

The Good Practices of RTIC include:

1. openness to research that challenges works already published in the journal;
2. responding promptly to complaints.