About the Journal

Focus and Scope

Peer Review Process

All submissions are send throu the RAFDR website, e-mail submission MUST BE accompained by a justification.

The Review process is double stepped. The First step is the preliminary evaluation by the Section Editor. The Section Editor verifies if the article follows the Author Guideliness.The Section Editor will inform the Editors Board about his analysis.

The second step begins with the approval of the Editorial Board over the submission, when the Sections Editor proceeds with the Double blind peer review process.

The Double blind peer review process is entirely done by the OJS system which the RAFDR is installed, ensuring the "blindness" of the review and log register for security. In exceptional cases it can be made throu e-mail that will be inserted by the Editor in the evalution tab.

Open Access Policy

This journal offers immediate free access to its content, following the principle that providing free scientific knowledge to the public provides greater diffusion of knowledge.

Absence of submission, publication and access fees

Our Editorial Guidelines

Concerned about the quality and reputation of its publications, the RAFDR establihes the following guidelines for its editorial practice:

I. What is an Ethical and heathful study:

We consider as an Ethical and heathful study, the ones that obey the basic research guidelines established by the CNPQ (portuguese), which we translate below :

1. The author always gives credit to all the sources he directly used in his work.
2. All in verbis quotes from another author are enclosed in quotation marks.
3. When summarizing a text from others, the author should seek to reproduce the exact meaning of the ideas or facts presented by the original author, who should be cited.
4. When doubt arises whether a concept or fact is common knowledge, one should not fail to make the appropriate quotations.
5. When submitting a manuscript for publication containing information, conclusions or data that have already been disseminated in a meaningful way (eg presented in a conference, published on the Internet), the author must clearly indicate to the editors and readers the existence of the prior disclosure of the information
6. If the results of a single complex study can be presented as a cohesive whole, it is not considered ethical that they are presented in a fragmented way by the use of several indivual articles
7. In order to avoid any characterization of self-plagiarism, the use of texts and previous works of the own author must be indicated, with the appropriate references and quotations.
8. The author must make sure that each quotation is correct and that each reference in the bibliography corresponds to a quotation in the text of the manuscript. The author must also give credit to the authors who first reported the observation or idea that is being presented.
9. When describing the work of others, the author should not rely on a secondary summary of his work, which may lead to a faulty description of the work cited. Whenever possible consult the original literature.
10. If an author needs to cite a secondary source (eg a revision) to describe the content of a primary source (eg, an empirical article in a journal), he must make sure of its correctness and always indicate the original source of the information being reported.
11. The intentional inclusion of references of questionable relevance or sources for the purpose of manipulating impact factors or increasing the probability of accepting the manuscript is ethically unacceptable.
12. When it is necessary to use information from another source, the author must write in such a way that it is clear to the readers which ideas are his and which come from the sources consulted.
13. The author has an ethical responsibility to report evidence that contradicts his or her point of view, if any. In addition, the evidence used to support their positions must be methodologically sound. When it is necessary to resort to studies that present methodological, statistical or other deficiencies, such defects should be clearly pointed out to the readers.
14. The author has an ethical obligation to report all aspects of the study that may be relevantfor an independent reproduction of his or her research.
15. Any change in the initial results obtained, such as the elimination of discrepancies or the use of alternative statistical methods, should be clearly described along with a rational justification for the use of such procedures.
16. The inclusion of authors in the manuscript should be discussed before starting the collaboration and should be based on already established guidelines, such as those of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors.
17. Only people who have made significant contributions to the work deserve authorship in a manuscript. By significant contribution is meant conducting experiments, participating in the elaboration of experimental planning, analysis of results or elaboration of the body of the manuscript. Equipment loans, obtaining financing or general supervision alone do not justify the inclusion of new authors, which should be acknowledged.
18. Collaboration between professors and students should follow the same criteria. Supervisors should ensure that students with little or no contribution are not included in the authorship nor exclude those who have actually participated in the work. Phantom authorship in Science is ethically unacceptable.
19. All authors of a paper are responsible for the veracity and integrity of the work, with the first author and the corresponding author responsible, and the other authors responsibility for their individual contributions.
20. Authors should be able to describe, when requested, their personal contribution to the work.
21. All research work must be conducted within ethical standards in its execution, whether with animals or with humans.

The RAFDR assume that all submissions are made obeying this guidelines and that mistakes, if made, were made in good faith.

II. Conflict of interest and the selection procedure

The RAFDR guarantees to all the authors a TRANSPARENT, FAIR and OBJECTIVE procedure in the evaluation of the manuscripts.

No Editor or evaluator should participate in the procedure if Conflict of Interest is found with the manuscript.

We consider conflict of interest the compromise of the ability to judge an objectively and objectively a manuscript by the existence of:
a) Particular interest of the Editor with the authors, whether financial or not;
b) the evaluator has assisted in the preparation of the manuscript that is being evaluated.

III.Type of articles published

The RAFDR has three  types of articles: standard, author-invited and R&D publication.

Standard articles make up, necessarily, 75% of each volume of the Journal, obeying the evaluation procedure described on the Journal website.

Author-guest articles are those selected by decision of the editorial board based on the importance and relevance of their content, as well as the nature of the authors of the study. These articles do not go through the double peer review stage.

R&D dissemination articles are studies of the researchers of the Programa de Pós-graduação em Direito/UFPE, being selected in the same way as author-invited articles. These articles are part of RAFDR's purpose in publicizing the production of PPGD-UFPE, so they do not undergo a double peer review procedure, but an internal selection by the PPGD. Also, this kind of articl must have PPGD-UFPE permanent professores as authors.

Under no circumstances, the sum of author-invited articles and R&D disclosures may exceed 25% of the published articles by volume of RAFDR and the final decision on their inclusion is a discretionary act of the Editorial Committee.

IV. Obligations

a) Editors and publishers:

1) Act with respect, transparency and ethics when analyzing submissions RAFDR, the  editors assume the duty to treat all submissions equally, without any discrimination as to sexual orientation, nationality, political ideology, religious belief and ethnic origin of the authors;

2) Ensure the confidentiality of the submissions, the evaluation process and the personal information of the authors and evaluators;

3) To combat the practice of plagiarism in order to prevent this practice from repeating itself by cooperating in investigations and providing wide assistance to victims and others Journals;

4) Inform and move away from any submission in which you have a conflict of interests, according to item II of these editorial guidelines;

5) To assume full responsibility for the decision to publish the submission, obeying the guidelines of the Editorial Board.

b)reviewers:

1) contribute to the quality of the submissions to be published in RAFDR;

2) to carry out the evaluation in a transparent, fair and within the Review guideliness of RAFDR in order to assist in the editorial decision;

2) inform the publisher as soon as possible of the impossibility of carrying out the evaluation request;

3) to inform and immediately depart from evaluations in which it has a conflict of interest;

4) maintain the confidentiality and anonymity of your evaluation, unless previously authorized by the Submission Editor to uncover it.

Any Reviewer who performed an evaluation registered in the RAFDR system is entitled to request a declaration stating its participation in the act. The Certificate does not contain any form of identification with the evaluated submission, being identified only by an internal numbering accessible only to the RAFDR Editors.

In case of non-receipt of the declaration, the reviewer should send an email to revista.academica@ufpe.br

c) authors:

a) obey the guidelines for authors in submitting articles to RAFDR;

b) guarantee that the submitted text is original, of its authorship and that it does not contain plagiarism, under penalty of the sanctions described at item V of the present guidelines;

c) not perform multiple or simultaneous submissions involving RAFDR with other journals, otherwise it will be considered as misconduct under the terms of item VII of these guidelines;

d) make any type of declaration that it deems relevant / important about the submission to the Editor;

e) act in a cordial, ethical and transparent manner throughout the submission, evaluation and publication process.

All authors are guaranteed a foundation in editorial decisions about their submissions.

V. Plagiarism and self-plagiarism

We consider plagiarism the unreferred use of published and unpublished ideas, configuring an act of misappropriation of the idea of a third party.

We consider self-plagiarism,  the unreferred use of own ideas published in other means, consisting in act of forgetting  previous publication. If configured fraud intention in act of  self-plagiarism, it will be considered plagiarism.

If verified the existence of plagiarism in a submission will be immediately rejected and the user blocked from the RAFDR system, being considered persona non grata from our journal.

Having verified the existence of plagiarism in an article published by our Journal, it will be immediately removed from the site and we will made a public statement about what happened.

Also, the Journal Chief Editor will contact the author of the plagiarized idea will be informed by the editorial team of the Journal about what happened to proceed with the due legal procedures against the plagiarist's office.

Having verified the existence of self-plagiarism in a submission, it will be immediately rejected and the user will be WARNED by RAFDR Editorial Board about the consequences of such act and the damages it can cause.

Authors who repeatedly commit self-plagiarism, will be blocked from our Journal after  the 04 (fourth) time.

The entire procedure is confidential and, beside the Editorial Statment previously mentioned, will not be made public unless requested by interested parties or official bodies.

VI. Plagiarism detection process

All submissions to RAFDR undergo a plagiarism scanning program, using the COPYSPIDER program in its freeware version as the initial scanning tool.

VII. Misconduct and Fraud

Misconduct is considered the act that, intentionally, seeks to harm the RAFDR causing damages to the journal in terms of its quality and reputation as a scientific journal.

Fraud is considered to be the act that, intentionally, seeks to harm the RAFDR causing damage to Journal in terms of its quality, reputation and causing financial/material damages.

Acts defined herein may be caused by authors, reviewers and editors/publishers.

The acts defined here are configured, for example, by not complying with the conditions for submitting the manuscript, omitting the existence of a conflict of interest and using purely ideological-political parameters in the evaluation and editorial decision.

The measures of punishment for misconduct / fraud will be according to the severity of the conduct, and may vary from simple warning up to full exclusion of the author, editor, evaluator of the Journal.

VIII. FURTHER READING

For the elaboration of these guidelines, the COPE guide and the CNPQ (portuguese) guidelines were consulted.

Basic Review Guidelines

As part of the submission process, authors are required to verify compliance of the submission in english language with respect to all items listed below. Submissions that do not conform to the standards will be returned to the authors.

1. All author metadata has been fullfilled (for Editorial review only)
2. The submission has Title, abstract and keywords
3. The author guideliness have been fullfilled
4. the article is original and contribute for the development of the thematic field it analyses
5. the evaluation form was fullfilled with honesty and ethics (for double blind peer proceeding)
6. the evalution form was registered in the system (this is made by clicking on item 7 of the evaluation screen and clicking on send evaluation to the Editor).

Submissions that do not conform to this minimums standards will be returned to the authors.