Ethics policy

Ethics Policy and Guidelines for Good Practices in Scientific Communication

The journal Ciência Animal Brasileira/Brazilian Animal Science (CAB) adheres to principles and standards in upholding ethical criteria throughout all stages of the article publication process, involving authors, editors, and reviewers. To achieve this, we follow the general guidelines established by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

We are committed to identifying and preventing the publication of articles containing verifiable research misconduct or ethical violations such as plagiarism, manipulation of citations, falsification/fabrication of data, lack of relevant authorizations, or dissemination of discriminatory opinions.

To investigate facts and determine necessary actions in cases of retraction and expression of concern, CAB adheres to the recommendations outlined in the COPE flowcharts. This investigation encompasses both submissions and already published articles. In the event of any complaint or observation of misconduct by any party involved during the editorial process, the aforementioned process will be temporarily halted for a thorough investigation, with prior notice to all parties involved. The review process will only resume if misconduct is not substantiated. In cases of misconduct by authors, the article will be removed from the review process, and the journal may, at the discretion of the editorial board, decline future submissions from the authors. If one or more editors engage in misconduct, they will be relieved of their duties at the journal. Similarly, if a reviewer is found to commit misconduct, they will no longer contribute to the journal, and their role as a reviewer will be deactivated.

CAB assumes responsibility for publishing corrections, clarifications, retractions, and other necessary explanations. If misconduct is identified after article publication, updates with additional data, corrections, retractions, or complete withdrawal may be necessary.

1 Ethical Principles Required of Editors

Editorial practice and the editor's relationships with those involved in publication (authors, reviewers, and other editorial team members) adhere to the Code of Conduct for Editors. Editors must consolidate the journal's editorial policy, supervising the entire editorial flow to ensure quality and transparency, as well as prevention and identification of misconduct.

Editors are responsible for deciding which articles to publish based on relevance, originality, and intellectual content, without discrimination of race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, nationality, or the political philosophy of the authors. They must observe legal requirements regarding defamation, copyright infringement, and plagiarism.

The editor is prohibited from disclosing any information about a submitted manuscript to individuals not engaged in the editorial process. Moreover, the editor must decline to review manuscripts if any conflict of interest arises due to competitive or collaborative relationships, or any other associations with the authors, companies, or (possible) institutions linked to the articles. Editors play a crucial role in selecting reviewers to mitigate potential conflicts of interest and uphold the integrity of the editorial process.

 

2 Ethical Principles Required of Authors

Authors must comply with the journal's editorial policy and presentation standards in the author guidelines. They must ensure the article is unpublished and not simultaneously submitted or published elsewhere (in part or in full). Articles on recognized pre-print servers, such as BioRxiv and SciElo pre-prints, are not considered prior publications by CAB.

Authors must ensure their works are original and that sources are properly cited. All manuscripts submitted to CAB undergo plagiarism detection (Crossref Similarity Check software) to prevent misconduct and ensure the originality of the written work. Plagiarism in any form is unethical publishing behavior and unacceptable. Suspected or denounced plagiarism will be investigated, and actions may include suspension of the editorial process for manuscripts still in the review stage, and publication of retraction, in the case of articles already published.

Authors are obligated to ensure that authorship is limited to those who have made a substantial contribution to the article, whether in terms of conception, execution, or interpretation of results. The contribution of each author (https://revistas.ufg.br/vet/statementofconsent) should be informed at the time of submission, following the taxonomy provided by CRedit (Contributor Role Taxonomy), which encompasses 14 categories typically associated with academic scientific production (https://credit.niso.org). This collaboration information is incorporated into the PDF of each published article. Contributors who do not meet the criteria for authorship should be acknowledged in the Acknowledgments section.

Authors are required to provide a declaration regarding the existence of any conflict of interest that might influence the results or interpretations. It is also the responsibility of the author to inform the journal's Editor if they identify any errors or inaccuracies in their published article. Authors retain the copyright and extend to the journal the right of first publication, with the work licensed under a Creative Commons License (CC-BY). Subsequent to publication, authors maintain both the copyright and the rights for republication of the text.

3 Ethical Principles Required of Reviewers

In undertaking the reviewing activity, reviewers must ground their assessments on the merit of the work, and it is their duty to communicate to the editorial board any suspicion of a conflict of interest that might compromise the fairness of the review process, whether it be personal, financial, intellectual, professional, political, or religious. Submissions and review details are to be treated confidentially, and privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review are to be kept confidential and must not be exploited for personal gain.

Reviewers bear the responsibility to respond to review requests within the established period, even if it entails declining the request. Additionally, they must adhere to the review return deadlines set by the editors or promptly inform about any potential delays.

Review comments must be objective and constructive. The use of inappropriate and/or racist language, along with other discriminatory opinions is unacceptable.