Editorial Policies

SECTION POLICY
ARTICLES FROM ALL SECTIONS WILL GO THROUGH THE COUPLE EVALUATION PROCESS.
AThe journal has 8 sections covering the most varied types of manuscripts. 5 sections of scientific papers and 3 sections of non-scientific papers as shown below. The democratization of work formats is in line with the objective (iii) of the journal.

Sections of scientific papers:
  • Section with thematic dossier - when there is a definition of the editor and editorial board;
  • of theses, dissertations, or TCCs) are considered essays; and the theoretical essays - theoretical articles that bring some advance in theory / or methodological in a given area - continuous flow;
  • Section with free articles - continuous flow; comprises empirical articles and essays. Literature review articles (partial results Expanded abstracts section - comprises expanded abstracts that have already been presented at some event - continuous flow;
Sections of non-scientific papers bringing advances to knowledge are:
  • Interview section - continuous flow;
  • Section with experience report - comprises, for example, case reports of public policy cases - continuous flow;
  • Reviews - review of international books relevant to the study area - continuous flow; ONLY BOOK REVIEWS PUBLISHED IN THE LAST 3 YEARS WILL BE ACCEPTED.
PEER REVIEW POLICY
The following procedures are used to evaluate the manuscript: Initially, plagiarism is checked using the plagius software. After that, the manuscript is evaluated for the relevance and quality of scientific writing (STEP 1). The evaluation takes into account: originality, originality; adequacy to the scope of the journal; rigor in scientific writing; cohesion and clarity in the presentation of methods, results, and discussions; skill with scientific communication, and textual quality;
After initial approval, the originals go through a double-blind peer review system with reviewers from the editorial board or external guests (STEP 2).
The evaluation takes into account the following items on the form:
Standard form for evaluating articless
  1. Is the research question clearly described in the introduction?
  2. Is the research question relevant, current, and based on state-of-the-art research on the topic in question?
  3. Are the basic theories of the research up to date and contextualized in the light of recent work (with articles from the last 10 years at least)?
  4. Was the theoretical framework based on a discussion between the theories relevant to the research problem?
  5. Was the methodology used clearly presented?
  6. Is the research method or technique chosen adequate to answer the research question?
  7. Were the research results presented to answer the research question asked?
  8. Were the research results sufficiently discussed based on the theoretical framework?
  9. Does the conclusion objectively point out the contributions of the article?
  10. Does the conclusion have research limitations or suggestions for future research?
  11. The ordering of ideas; language and vocabulary used; are spelling and grammatical style and correction adequate?
  12. Have the consulted sources been properly cited and referenced?
In case of disagreement between the evaluators, the editor will make decisions when to REJECT, suggest to the authors SUBMIT AGAIN, or even, SEND TO A THIRD EVALUATOR. After receiving the ad hoc evaluators' opinions, the final editorial evaluation will imply, in the following options: a) accepted without or minor modifications; b) acceptance subject to the modifications suggested by the evaluators; c) resubmit and, d) refused (STEP 3). Authors can follow the steps by logging into the journal's platform. The journal's goal is that the maximum time between article submission, evaluation, and the final decision is 40 days. However, this period may vary depending on the subject of the article and the availability of the reviewers.
OPEN AND FREE ACCESS POLICY
This journal offers free and immediate access to its content under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0), following the principle that providing the public with free scientific knowledge providing greater global democratization of knowledge. This journal uses Open Journal Systems, which is an open-source journal management and publishing software developed, supported, and distributed free of charge by the Public Knowledge Project under the GNU General Public License.
PLAGUE AND SELF-PLAGUE POLICY
All articles received are previously evaluated by the editorial board. If plagiarism is suspected, the article is automatically rejected. Also, BRJPD uses the software “Plagius - Plagiarism Detector” after final reviews before final acceptance of the publication. Link to the software: https://www.plagius.com/br
COPYRIGHT POLICY
Authors who publish on the BRJPD must agree to the following terms:
  • Authors retain the copyright and grant the journal the right to first publication, with the work simultaneously licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0), allowing sharing of the work with an acknowledgment of authorship of the work and initial publication in this journal.
  • Authors are authorized to assume additional contracts separately, for the non-exclusive distribution of the version of the work published in this journal (eg, publishing in an institutional repository or as a book chapter), with acknowledgment of authorship and initial publication in this journal.
  • Authors are allowed and encouraged to publish and distribute their work online (eg in institutional repositories or on their personal page) at any point before or during the editorial process, as this can generate useful criticisms and suggestions, as well as increase impact and citation of published work.
  • The authors reserve the right of the editorial board of this journal to make, in the original works, changes of a normative, orthographic, and grammatical order, to meet its editorial policy and maintain the cultured standard of the language while respecting the style of the authors.
  • Authors must allow the Editorial Board to assign a DOI to their articles and file them in databases and indexers.
  • The authors assume the exclusive responsibility for their opinions expressed in the works published in this journal.
SELF-ARCHIVE AND DIGITAL PRESERVATION POLICY
BRJPD allows self-archiving on personal sites, institutional repositories, thematic repositories. The self-archiving or deposit of the works can be done at the time of publication of the articles. The published version that can be used for this deposit is post-printing (editorial version). For example PN PKP, LOCKSS, and others.
ETHICS POLICY AND GOOD PRACTICES IN PUBLICATION
A BRJPD is a journal with scientific arbitration, aiming to ensure the highest ethical standards in the publication. Thus, the agreement of the agents involved in the publication process - Editors, Editorial Council, Scientific Council, Ad hoc Referees, and Authors - is relevant and necessary, related to the standards of ethical behavior. Taking as a reference the Code of Conduct and Standards of Good Practice for Journal Editors of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), the following principles are considered.
Editors are responsible for:
  1. Analyze the submitted articles and approve those that are within the scope of the Journal for the editorial flow, taking as reference the thematic focus of the journal, the guidelines for publication, and legal aspects in terms of defamation, copyright violations, and plagiarism.
  2. Act objectively and fairly, avoiding any type of religious, political, social, gender, sexual orientation, or beliefs of the authors.
  3. Instruct Invited Editors, Authors, and Evaluators on the editorial flow and the peer review process, which involves meeting the guidelines of the Journal, submission, evaluation, and referrals.
  4. To ensure an anonymous and double-blind peer review process for articles (fair and impartial), ensuring that information remains confidential.
  5. Ensure the protection of the identity of the authors and reviewers involved in the arbitration process.
  6. Carry out an appropriate selection of the evaluators.
  7. Organize the list of evaluators and keep their data updated.
  8. Ensure that materials not published in an article are not used in research and publications carried out by Editors or members of the Editorial Board without the consent of the authors.
  9. Respond to questions related to a published article, regarding the possibility of editorial misconduct, following the guidelines of COPE.
  10. Publish, when necessary, corrections, clarifications, retractions, and apologies.
  11. Ensure the autonomy of editorial decisions.
  12. Protect intellectual property and authors' rights.
  13. Ensure the maintenance of good editorial practices.
  14. In the case of detection or suspicion of plagiarism, redundancy (double publication), manufactured data, conflicts of interest, or ethical problems (for example, violation of protected patents, experiments with animals or humans without due ethical rigor), before or after the publication of the manuscripts, the editors of the Journal will take measures following the guidelines recommended by the Publications Ethics Committee (COPE), providing an opportunity for authors to respond to any complaints/denunciations, keeping all documentation related to the case on file.


Reviewers who are members of the Scientific Council or the ad hoc body of reviewers are responsible for:
  1. Notify the Editors of your availability to evaluate an article.
  2. Refuse the invitation whenever you do not feel qualified to evaluate according to the topic addressed, the identification of aspects that lead to recognizing authorship, and/or if there is a conflict of interest.
  3. Treat manuscripts as confidential documents, protecting intellectual property and authors' rights, keeping information confidential, and committing not to use privileged information for their own benefit, including in their research and/or publications.
  4. Communicate to the Editors about the identification of a violation of rights by the authors and/or practices of plagiarism.
  5. In case of potential conflicts of interest with the author (s) of a received manuscript, inform the responsible Editor and refrain from revising it.
  6. To prepare an opinion based on good editorial practices concerning ethics, impersonality, reasonableness, and respect for human rights.


The Authors are responsible for:
  1. Know the focus, scope, objective, thematic scope, policies, and guidelines for submission related to the Journal, described on its website.
  2. Prepare the article based on research and/or systematic study carried out, addressing and problematizing, coherently, the data and presenting the contributions.
  3. Ensure that the submitted article is original and when it comes to expanding the work published in annals of scientific events, ensure a consistent approach and significant analysis.
  4. Do not submit the article simultaneously to another journal.
  5. Pay attention to the rules of the Research Ethics Committee of the institution to which the research portrayed in the article is linked, when dealing with the involvement of human beings.
  6. When the research involves experimentation with humans and animals, the authors must comply with the requirements of Resolution 466, of December 12, 2012, of the National Health Council / Brazil (available at http://conselho.saude.gov. or / resolutions / 2012 / Reso466.pdf, including information on the opinion of the Research Ethics Committee of the institutions involved).
  7. Ensure that there are no expressions or insertions that constitute plagiarism, as well as giving credit by citing sources of excerpts from other productions.
  8. Inform, in the text, if the research was approved by the Human Research Ethics Committee.
  9. Ensure that the article has not been published in another journal and when it comes to translating an international publication, this information must appear on the first page of it.
  10. Maintain communication with the Editors, including informing the need to correct some information in the published article.
  11. Ensure that there is a consensus among all co-authors in the approval of the final version of the article and its subsequent submission to the Journal for publication.


The pushing company is responsible for:
1) Ensure that good practices are maintained following the standards described above and with its policies;
ATTENTION! Editorial practice in the case of scientific misconduct (plagiarism, self-plagiarism, falsification or fabrication of data, misuse of references or citations, duplicity, authorship dispute, among others) follows the procedures, checklist, and guidelines of the Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE - http://publicationethics.org/). The Journal adopts plagiarism and self-plagiarism tracking tools, and authors should be aware of the implications provided for in the legal provisions of the Penal Code (article 184) and the Copyright Law (Art. 7, the third paragraph of Law 9.610, February 19, 1998 - see Law No. 12,853, of 2013
PROCEDURES FOR DEALING WITH SUSPECTED MISCONDUCT
If a plagiarism incident is suspected, the evaluation process will be stopped and the authors will be asked to provide clarification. Misconduct and unethical behavior such as plagiarism, redundancy (double publication), fabricated data, conflicts of interest, or ethical problems (for example, violation of protected patents, experiments on animals or humans without due to ethical rigor) can be identified and brought to the editor's attention at any time, by anyone. Whoever informs the editor or editor of such conduct must provide sufficient information and evidence for an investigation to be initiated. All claims must be taken seriously and dealt with in the same way, until a final decision or conclusion is reached. In case of detection or suspicion before or after the publication of the manuscript, the editors of the Journal will take measures following the guidelines recommended by the Publications Ethics Committee (COPE), available at https://publicationethics.org/files/Full set of English flowcharts_9Nov2016.pdf. If plagiarism, redundancy, manufactured data, conflicts of interest, or ethical problems are proven in any published article, the Journal is exempt from any responsibility and the authors will be subject to all legal penalties provided by law and the burden of irregularities committed by them. In the case of detection of misconduct, depending on the type and severity of the case, the authors may suffer one or more of the following penalties:
1) Be formally clarified about any misunderstandings that have occurred in misconduct.
2) Be mentioned in a formal or editorial notice of the journal detailing the misconduct.
3) Have the case formally reported to the lead or funding agency for the misconduct.
4) Be prevented from submitting new manuscripts to the journal.
5) Have the case formally reported to a professional organization or higher authority for further investigations and actions.