Publication Ethics and Best Practice Information
Cadernos do Arquivo Municipal is a peer reviewed journal that adopts international standards for scientific publications, is committed to a policy of ethics and good practice, and follows the code of conduct and standards of good practice for journal editors of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).
The purpose of the Declaration of Ethics of the Cadernos do Arquivo Municipal is to promote trust, respect and responsibility among all journal collaborators (editors, Advisory Board, coordinators, authors and reviewers) in order to guarantee the scientific integrity and quality of the published texts. We seek to ensure that there is no discrimination against contributors, particularly based on personal characteristics or identity, as well as to remove barriers to inclusion, integrate diversity and promote equity at all stages of the editorial process, actively encouraging the submission of texts from diverse backgrounds, including ethnicity, nationality, gender identity, sexual orientation, religion and disability.
We do not tolerate any kind of abusive behaviour or communication towards those involved in the editorial process (editors, Advisory Board, coordinators, authors and reviewers). If any party engages in such behaviour, we reserve the right to take measures to protect third parties from such abuse.
You should contact us at am.cadernos@cm-lisboa.pt whenever you consider that a publication in the Cadernos do Arquivo Municipal does not comply with the principles set out in this declaration. Communications received will be dealt with internally following COPE guidelines, and/or by appointing members of the Advisory Board or external experts to conduct independent and confidential research.
1. PUBLISHERS
1.1 Publishing decisions
1.1.1 The decision to publish articles submitted to Cadernos do Arquivo Municipal is the responsibility of the editors and is supported by the opinions of the scientific coordinators and scientific reviewers.
1.1.2 The editors are guided by the journal's policy, as well as the legal framework in force for defamation, copyright infringement and plagiarism. Editorial decisions are based on the importance of the content for researchers and readers.
1.2 Transparency and scientific autonomy
1.2.1 The editors accept contributions from researchers outside their knowledge networks, as well as the networks of the scientific coordinators invited to collaborate on thematic dossiers, but this acceptance is not based on proximity relationships.
1.2.2 The editors undertake to ensure that their editorial decisions are based solely on principles of scientific autonomy, that the editorial process is fair, impartial and anonymous and that research articles are evaluated by external and independent reviewers.
1.2.4 The editors ensure that texts submitted for publication are analysed based on quality criteria and not on the identity of the authors (or any identity mark).
1.2.5 Unless otherwise agreed in writing, reviews are the intellectual property of the scientific reviewers. All parties involved in the editorial process are encouraged to familiarize themselves with the COPE guidelines for Editing of Peer Reviews.
1.2.6 The editors follow the COPE Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing and encourage other collaborators (editors, Advisory Board, coordinators, authors and reviewers) to follow these same principles.
1.3 Information
1.3.1 The names and affiliations of the editors are identified on the Cadernos do Arquivo Municipal website. It also contains all the relevant information about the journal, such as publication rules, a description of the peer review process, access policy, calls for articles and other news, as well as general information about the journal.
1.4 Confidentiality and integrity in peer review
1.4.1 The editors guarantee total discretion in the treatment of papers submitted to the journal subject to peer review, as well as in communications with reviewers and authors. All are subject to a duty of confidentiality.
1.4.2 The editors ensure a double-blind peer review process.
1.4.3 Editors should analyse manuscripts for their intellectual content and not for issues of ethnic origin, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, citizenship or political philosophy of the authors.
1.4.4 Editors should ensure that all parties involved understand the journal's editorial policy, and encourage transparency and honest communication between the parties, especially with reviewers and authors, who should clearly understand what is expected of them.
1.4.5 The editors select reviewers with skills appropriate to the scientific field of the article, ensuring an inclusive and diverse representation. They must consider potential conflicts of interest to ensure complete impartiality.
1.4.6 The editors have a responsibility to provide referees with clear instructions on the peer review process and the opinion sought, ensuring that the process is fair, impartial and well-founded.
1.4.7 The editors can only base their decisions on the publication of articles and other manuscripts exclusively on criteria of originality, clarity, quality and relevance to both the editorial scope and the objectives of the journal.
1.4.8 The editors undertake not to use the contents of submitted and unpublished manuscripts for any purpose without the express written consent of the author. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and must not be used for personal or institutional benefit.
1.5 Conflicts of interest and misconduct
1.5.1 Editors must oversee all issues relating to ethics, conflicts of interest and misconduct in publishing and at no time may they encourage improper conduct or allow it to occur with their consent.
1.5.2 The editor must work to safeguard the integrity of the published article by analysing and evaluating reports or suspicions of misconduct (research, publication, review and editing).
1.5.3 Any potential conflicts of interest (of editors, reviewers or authors) must be declared in writing and updated if or when new conflicts arise. Editors can make these declarations public.
1.5.4 Failure to declare a potential competing interest may constitute misconduct. In some circumstances, it can lead to the rejection of a submission or the retraction of an article after publication.
1.5.5 Editors must take the necessary measures to identify and prevent the publication of articles resulting from bad practices.
1.5.6 Editors should encourage authorship attribution and discourage ghost authorship or authorship by invitation by confirming that all authors have contributed to the manuscript. Editors should include all authors in communications even if there is a corresponding author figure.
1.5.7 An editor may submit manuscripts to Cadernos do Arquivo Municipal but is immediately excluded from any participation in decisions regarding their submission. This measure extends to members of the editor's family, or those related to products or services in which the editor has an interest. Any submission of this type is subject to the journal's usual procedures, including blind peer review. The other editors must comply with the confidentiality criteria stipulated in the journal's policy and ensure that information is included in the published article that attests to the transparency of all procedures.
1.5.8 Whenever editors become aware of misconduct, they must ensure that COPE guidelines are followed. After analysis, they should decide whether to publish an amendment, a note of concern or a retraction and, if it is not avoidable, whether to remove the article.
1.6 Use of generative AI and AI-assisted technologies in the editorial process
1.6.1 Generative artificial intelligence (generative AI) is an artificial intelligence technology that can produce various types of content, including text, images, audio and synthetic data (examples include ChatGPT, NovelAI, Jasper AI, Rytr AI, DALL-E, among others). This chapter aims to provide greater transparency and guidance to authors, editors and reviewers with regard to generative AI.
1.6.2 A submitted manuscript should be treated as a confidential document. Editors should not upload a submitted manuscript or any part of it to a public generative AI tool, as this action may violate the confidentiality and property rights of the authors. If the document contains personally identifiable information, it may violate privacy rights.
1.6.3 This confidentiality requirement extends to any communications about the manuscript, as they may contain confidential information.
1.6.4 Generative AI or AI-assisted technologies should not be used by editors to assist in the decision-making process on a manuscript, since the critical thinking and original assessment required for this work are outside the scope of this technology and there is a risk of generating incorrect, incomplete or biased conclusions. Only the editors are responsible for the editorial process, the final decision and its communication to the authors.
1.7 Metrics, usage and reports
1.7.1 The editors ensure that the reports on access to and use of the journal's content comply with COUNTER’s Code of Practice.
2. PEER REVIEWERS
2.1 Contribution to editorial decisions
2.1.1 Peer reviewing helps authors to improve their articles and editors to make editorial decisions and is therefore an essential component of scientific and academic communication, placing it at the heart of the scientific method.
2.1.2 Reviewers are selected by the editors according to their knowledge of the content of the articles. Whenever they do not feel qualified to write an opinion or consider that their evaluation cannot meet the established deadline, they should notify the editors immediately so that alternative reviewers can be contacted.
2.1.3 Reviewers should help authors by suggesting improvements to texts. Reviewers should express their views in a clear and constructive manner, based on scientific arguments. The evaluation must be carried out objectively and focus on the content according to criteria previously established by the journal (originality, quality, rigor, clarity, among others). Personal criticism of authors or criticism without any grounds will not be tolerated.
2.1.4 Reviewers can suggest changes to the text, but they must not rewrite the article by imposing a personal style.
2.1.5 Although it is not the role of the reviewers to broaden the scope of the article, they can suggest consulting sources and studies that are not mentioned in the text whenever they consider that these contribute to clarifying the author's points of view.
2.1.6 The reviewers should assist the editors in deciding whether to publish the articles. The final decisions, which can vary between accepting the article, accepting it after changes or rejecting it, must be consistent with the comments made in the reviews.
2.2 Integrity and confidentiality
2.2.1 All manuscripts received for review should be treated as confidential documents. Reviewers should not share their assessment or information about the article with anyone, either during the refereeing process or after it has ended.
2.2.2 Each scientific reviewer is asked to fill in one evaluation form per article. The reviewer is solely responsible for the content of the evaluation form.
2.2.3 In addition to complying with specific duties related to ethics, reviewers are expected to consider authors and their work as they would like to be considered, and to observe good evaluation practices.
2.2.4 If a reviewer suggests that an author include citations of work they have published, there must be genuine scientific reasons and not an intention to increase the reviewer's citation count or the visibility of their work.
2.2.5 Reviewers should avoid intentionally extending the review period.
2.2.6 Materials used in a submitted manuscript, whether it is published or not, may not be used in a reviewer's research without the express written consent of the author. Privileged information or ideas obtained through refereeing must be kept confidential and must not be used for personal gain.
2.2.7 Reviewers whose conduct or commitment is not acceptable will not be considered for future evaluations.
2.3 Alert to ethical issues
2.3.1 Reviewers should be aware of potential ethical issues and notify the editors of significant similarities or coincidences between the manuscript under review and any published and/or available text of which they are aware. Reviewers should inform the editors of any copyright infringement and/or plagiarism on the part of the author.
2.3.2 Peer reviewing is essential for maintaining the journal's quality standards. Therefore, reviewers are encouraged to follow the relevant good practice guidelines on peer review. Reviewers should consult the COPE’s Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers.
2.4 Use of generative AI and AI-assisted technologies in the peer review process
2.4.1 Whenever a researcher is invited to review a manuscript, all documents resulting from the peer review process are treated as confidential (evaluation form, text and correspondence between editors, reviewers and authors) even if the aim is only to improve language and readability.
2.4.2 Reviewers should not upload a submitted manuscript or any part of it to a public generative AI tool, as they may be violating the confidentiality and property rights of the authors. If the document contains personally identifiable information, it may also violate privacy rights.
2.4.3 Peer reviewing is at the heart of the scientific ecosystem and Cadernos do Arquivo Municipal respects the highest standards of integrity throughout the process. Reviewing a scientific manuscript entails responsibilities that can only be attributed to human beings.
2.4.4 AI-generating or AI-assisted technologies should not be used to assist in the peer review of an article, since the critical thinking and original assessment required for review are outside the scope of this technology and there is a risk of generating incorrect, incomplete or biased conclusions.
3. AUTHORS
3.1 Information and cooperation
3.1.1 Authors are expected to carefully read the Publication Guidelines available on the journal's website before submitting their article.
3.1.2 Authors are expected to participate in the peer review process, respect the reviewers and accept the journal's decisions. Abusive correspondence or behaviour towards the editors will not be tolerated and may lead to the manuscript being withdrawn.
3.1.3 Authors must cooperate with the investigations regarding the ethics, rigor and integrity of their work, taking steps to resolve any problems that may arise.
3.1.4 When an article is the result of a funded project, the authors undertake to disclose all sources of funding.
3.1.5 Authors must inform the editors of any changes related to authorship, affiliation or status of contributions, as well as inaccuracies in their articles, even if these have already been published.
3.2 Authorship and contribution
3.2.1 Authorship of the submitted article should be limited to those who contributed significantly to its conception, design, execution or interpretation of the study carried out. All those who made a significant contribution should be indicated as co-authors. All those who participated in substantial aspects of the research should be identified as collaborators. For specifications of the definition of authorship not covered in this document, the journal follows the guidelines of the ICMJE (page 2).
3.2.2 The authors assume collective responsibility for the work. Each author is responsible for ensuring that issues relating to the accuracy or completeness of any part of the article are properly investigated and resolved.
3.2.3 The submission of the article must include the list and order of the authors. Only in exceptional circumstances, and upon written communication from the corresponding author to the editors, will the editors consider adding, deleting or rearranging authors after the manuscript has been submitted. Changes of authorship will only be permitted if valid reasons are given, and all authors agree to the change. The journal follows the relevant COPE guidelines for these situations: Adding a new author before the article is published; Removing an author before the article is published; Adding a new author after the article has been published; Removing an author after the article has been published.
3.2.4 Although authors can appoint a corresponding author who will liaise with the editors, all co-authors must receive all correspondence and be informed of all decisions regarding the article at the different stages of the process.
3.2.5 After submission, changing who is designated as corresponding author will only be allowed if there is a substantive reason for doing so.
3.2.6 The corresponding author must ensure that all co-authors are included in the list of authors of the article and that there is a consensus on the submission and approval of its final version.
3.2.7 Authors must obtain permission to use copyrighted material from the rights holders and must send the permission to the journal.
3.2.8 Cadernos do Arquivo Municipal recommends that authors identify, in an Acknowledgements section, any person who, although not meeting the criteria for authorship, collaborated in the research or writing of the article. They should obtain their permission to do so.
3.2.9 Authors' affiliations must correspond to the institutions to which they belong. If other institutions are involved, they should also be mentioned.
3.2.10 Authorship and contribution will be disclosed after publication, allowing full transparency about who contributed to the work and how they did so.
3.3 Originality and identification of sources
3.3.1 Authors must guarantee that their work is original and has not been previously made available or published.
3.3.2 Authors may not submit the same text to more than one journal at the same time.
3.3.3 Whenever necessary, authors must obtain ethical consent for their research.
3.3.4 Authors of texts resulting from original research must present the work carried out in a rigorous manner and present an objective problematization of its significance. The data underlying the research must be objectively included in the article.
3.3.5 Authors must rigorously present their contributions, their methods and their results, even if these may be contrary to their theories or hypotheses.
3.3.6 Acknowledgement of the work of others should always be done appropriately. Authors should cite relevant publications that allow for a proper contextualization of the topic.
3.3.7 Information such as conversations, correspondence or discussions with third parties must not be used or communicated without the explicit written permission of the source.
3.3.8 It is not acceptable to enhance, obscure, move, remove or introduce a specific feature into an image. Adjustments to brightness, contrast or colour balance are acceptable if and as long as they do not obscure or eliminate any information present in the original. Manipulation of images to improve their readability is accepted, but for other purposes may be seen as ethical abuse and will be dealt with accordingly.
3.3.9 Authors must obtain consent to publish any data or media that allow people to be identified, such as photographs, videos, clinical data, quotes, demographic data, etc. Consent must be obtained from parents or legal guardians in the case of minors.
3.4 Integrity and confidentiality
3.4.1 Fraudulent or intentionally inaccurate statements constitute unethical and unacceptable behaviour.
3.4.2 Information obtained during the performance of confidential tasks (such as the evaluation of texts) may not be used without the express written authorization of the author of the work subject to those tasks.
3.5 Conflicts of interest and misconduct
3.5.1 The Cadernos do Arquivo Municipal are based on international guidelines regarding misconduct such as plagiarism, recycled and duplicated or redundant publication, simultaneous submission, etc.
3.5.2 All allegations of misconduct will be handled with the utmost care. Any conflicts of interest must be fully disclosed, whether identified before or after publication. Discussions and/or corrections are welcome and submitted in correspondence with the journal's management.
3.5.3 Plagiarism takes many forms, from using, copying or paraphrasing the work of other authors as one's own, to claiming ideas, data and research results carried out by others. It can occur in relation to all types of studies and sources or media, including texts and illustrations, material downloaded from websites or extracted from manuscripts or other media, published and unpublished material, including conferences, presentations and grey literature, among others. Plagiarism in all its forms constitutes unethical behaviour and is unacceptable. The journal reserves the right to check all submissions using appropriate verification tools.
3.5.4 Text recycling occurs when an author reuses sections of text from their own previous publications (including doctoral theses and master's dissertations), albeit in a different medium or language, without proper attribution. In these cases, the authors must inform the editors beforehand or at the time of submitting the manuscript and refer to the original work, so that they can assess: i) the amount of text recycled; ii) where in the article the text recycling occurs; iii) whether the source of the recycled text has been identified in the article; iv) whether the article contributes to the advancement of scientific research; v) whether there is an infringement of copyright. Based on these criteria, the editors will decide whether to accept or reject the manuscript. The journal reserves the right to verify all submissions using appropriate verification tools.
3.5.5 Redundant or duplicate publication refers to the large-scale repeated publication of text or data with at least one author in common and is also not acceptable.
3.5.6 Whenever there are suspicions of misconduct, these will be analysed by the editors who will keep the whole process confidential until its conclusion and will be fair and firm in their decisions.
3.5.7 The editors will appoint a person or a group of people (depending on the situation) from among the members of the Advisory Board who will assess the situation and act impartially, consulting all those involved. Finally, a document will be drawn up with recommendations that should be followed. If necessary, legal or other advice will be sought.
3.5.8 On the basis of the document issued, Cadernos do Arquivo Municipal will follow COPE’s Retraction Guidelines and will publish a note of concern, correction or retraction, and may choose to remove the article if it has been published. It is up to the editors to make the final decision based on the documents issued. If there is no evidence of misconduct, the editorial process will follow the usual steps.
3.6 Using generative AI and AI-assisted technologies in scientific writing
3.6.1 Authors should note that this policy refers only to the writing process and not to the use of AI tools to analyse and extract information from the data as part of the research.
3.6.2 When authors use generative AI and AI-assisted technologies in the writing process, these technologies should only be used to improve the readability and language of the work. Since the application of technology must be done with human supervision and control, authors should carefully review and edit the results, as they may be incorrect, incomplete or biased. Authors are ultimately responsible for the content of the work.
3.6.3 Authors must disclose and include in their manuscript a statement indicating the use of AI and AI-assisted technologies. This statement promotes transparency and trust between authors, readers, reviewers and editors, and facilitates compliance with the terms of use of the tool or technology in question.
3.6.4 Authors should not indicate AI and AI-assisted technologies as co-authors, nor cite AI as an author. Authorship implies responsibilities and tasks that can only be assigned to and performed by human beings. Each author is responsible for ensuring that issues relating to the accuracy or completeness of any part of the work are properly investigated and resolved, and authorship requires the ability to approve the final version of the work and agree to its presentation.
This document was based on and inspired by:
Elsevier Publishing Ethics
Cambridge University Press’ Research Publishing Ethics Guidelines 2022
Oxford Academic’s Publication Ethic
ICMJE’s Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing, and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals
COPE’s guidelines
For any questions or omissions in this document please contact am.cadernos@cm-lisboa.pt.
