Ethics Code

2i Journal adheres to the COPE code of ethics (Committee on Publication Ethics: https://publicationethics.org/) and the Code of Ethical Conduct of the University of Minho.

Adopting a policy of transparency, editorial integrity and good practices in terms of ethics of publication, which extends to editors, authors and reviewers, 2i Journal rejects any type of unethical conduct, including any form of plagiarism.

All agents in the editorial process are guided by the following duties:

Editors' Duties

1. Professional and scientific responsibility: Publishers are obliged to provide a high quality service and to the best of their abilities and knowledge. Guest editors must collaborate with the Journal's direction in the production process of the issue, providing all the relevant documentation and information for this stage.

2. Publication decision: Based on the reviewers' recommendations, editors can accept, reject, or request modifications to the article. The editors will publish all articles accepted for publication, except in cases where gross errors or reprehensible ethical conduct (plagiarism or other gross practice) are detected after acceptance.

3. Confidentiality:  The editors ensure the confidentiality of the double-blind peer review process, as well as the anonymity of authors and reviewers. In case of detection of plagiarism or other gross practice, editors will follow COPE guidelines (see flowchart for plagiarism practices at https://publicationethics.org/resources/flowcharts).

4. Fair play: The editors will always evaluate the texts submitted to the Journal regarding their intellectual content, as long as their topic fits the journal's theme. Editorial decisions are not influenced by the origins of the manuscript, including the authors' nationality, gender, ethnicity, political beliefs, race or religion.                                                                 

5. Transparency and conflicts of interest: Materials contained in a submitted text may not be used in the investigation of the editor or any other member of the editorial team, without the express written consent of the author(s) of the text.

6. Respect for human rights, dignity and diversity: Although the content and language of articles are the responsibility of the authors, editors will not allow texts with content or language that is discriminatory and/or offensive to a particular social group to enter the process of evaluation, rejecting them in advance.

 

Authors' Duties

1. Scientific and academic responsibility: The authors must ensure that the submitted text constitutes a relevant contribution to the areas of knowledge of the Journal.

2. Integrity: The authors do not falsify or manufacture data, sources, results, conclusions or credentials, ensuring the protection of information confidentiality, namely information of a sensitive nature obtained during the investigation.

3. Text authorship: Text authorship should be limited to authors who have provided a substantive contribution to the conception, design, execution and interpretation of the reported research. The responsible author of the article must ensure that all co-authors are aware of the final version of the article to be submitted and that they agree with its publication, as well as with its inclusion as co-authors of that article.

4. Originality: Authors must ensure that they have produced a fully original text and that any work or words by other authors have been properly accredited and referenced.

5. Ethical approval: The authors undertake to obtain informed consent, oral or written, from research participants or their legal representatives, whenever ethically recommended.

6. Acknowledgment of sources: Acknowledgment of the work of other authors must appear in any manuscript. Authors should always cite publications that have been preponderant in the work being reported.

7. Financial conflicts and conflicts of interest: Authors must disclose financial or other conflicts of interest in their text that may be taken as a factor influencing the results or the interpretation of the data reported therein. All sources of funding for the research carried out must also be disclosed in the text.

8. Significant errors in published works: Whenever an author discovers a significant error in an article, it is his/her obligation to immediately notify the journal editor and provide the necessary information for its correction. The editor will insert a correction note in the published article.

9. Respect for human rights, dignity and diversity: The authors undertake not to use offensive, discriminatory or abusive language, namely with regard to: ethnicity; culture; national origin; gender; sexual orientation; age; religion; tongue; health conditions; socioeconomic status.

 

Reviewers' Duties

1. Scientific and academic responsibility: By accepting to review texts submitted to 2i Journal, reviewers undertake to provide a high quality service to the best of their abilities and knowledge.

2. Confidentiality: Any text received for review must be treated by the reviewer as a confidential document.

3. Indication of sources: Reviewers must ensure that authors have identified all sources used in their investigation. A reviewer should also call the journal editor's attention if he notices any similarity or overlap between a text under review and any other published article of which he is aware.

4. Objectivity: Manuscript reviews must be conducted objectively and observations must be clearly formulated and based on arguments that support them.

5. Acceptance of the review: Any reviewer who cannot guarantee that their review will be sent within the stipulated period must report this fact to the editor, so that the manuscript can eventually be sent to another reviewer.

6. Conflicts of interest: Any of the following situations is considered a conflict and should be avoided: having co-authored publications together with at least one of the authors in the last three years; to be/have been supervisor of the author(s) PhD or to be/have been supervised by the author(s); receive professional or personal benefits following the review in question; have a personal relationship (namely, family or friendship) with the author(s); have a direct or indirect interest in the article under review.