Publication Ethics Statement

brazilian science communications follows the Core Practices of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). This page states what we require of authors, reviewers and editors, and what we do when a requirement is breached.

Authorship

Authorship requires all four of the following: substantial contribution to the conception or content of the synthesis; drafting it or revising it critically; approval of the version submitted; and agreement to be accountable for it.

Acquiring funding, holding a leadership position, or having produced some of the research being synthesized does not by itself justify authorship. Those contributions belong in the acknowledgements.

Everyone who meets the criteria must be listed; no one who does not may be. Ghost authorship, gift authorship and honorary authorship are all forms of misrepresentation.

The corresponding author confirms that every listed author has seen and approved the submission. Changes to the author list after submission require the written agreement of all authors, including any being removed, and an explanation to the editor.

Originality and prior publication

Manuscripts must be original and must not be under consideration elsewhere. A synthesis necessarily restates published findings — that is its function — but it must do so in the authors' own words, with the sources cited, and its framing and conclusions must be new.

Posting a preprint does not compromise consideration. Authors should tell us the preprint's DOI at submission and update the preprint record on publication.

Text overlapping with the authors' own earlier work must be cited like any other source. Self-plagiarism is plagiarism with a more sympathetic motive.

All submissions are screened for similarity. A finding of substantial unattributed overlap ends consideration.

Citation

Every substantive claim must be traceable to a source. Authors must not cite works they have not read, must not add citations to inflate any metric, and must not omit work that contradicts their argument.

Editors and reviewers must not require authors to cite the editor's or reviewer's own work as a condition of publication. Coercive citation is misconduct.

Conflicts of interest

Authors must declare any financial or non-financial interest that a reader could reasonably consider capable of influencing the synthesis: employment, consultancy, funding, patents, paid advocacy, unpaid positions in bodies with a stake in the conclusions, and close personal relationships.

Declaring an interest does not disqualify a manuscript. Concealing one does.

All funding sources are stated, with grant numbers. Where there was no specific funding, the manuscript says so.

Editors who have a conflict with a manuscript take no part in its handling, and the record of the decision shows who acted in their place.

Use of artificial intelligence

AI tools may not be listed as authors: they cannot take responsibility for the work.

Authors who used generative AI in producing the manuscript must disclose it in a statement naming the tool and describing what it was used for. Routine assistance with language does not require disclosure; generating text, arguments, analyses, figures or reference lists does.

The authors remain fully responsible for everything in the manuscript, including anything a tool produced. Fabricated citations are a common failure of these tools and are treated as fabrication regardless of origin.

Corrections and retractions

The published record is permanent; the way we fix it is to add to it, never to alter or remove silently.

• Correction: an error that affects a specific claim but leaves the synthesis standing. The article is amended and a linked correction notice is published, both citable.
• Retraction: the conclusions are no longer supported, or there was misconduct. The article remains online, marked, with a notice stating who requested the retraction and why.
• Expression of concern: published when a serious question is raised that we cannot yet resolve, and withdrawn or replaced when it is.

Retraction is not a punishment. A retraction requested by the authors themselves, on discovering their own error, is recorded as such and is a credit to them.

Allegations of misconduct

Concerns may be raised with the Editor-in-Chief at any time, including after publication, and are examined regardless of who raises them. Anonymous allegations are considered on their evidence.

We follow the COPE flowcharts. The authors are given the allegation and a genuine opportunity to respond before any conclusion is reached. Where the matter concerns work done at an institution, the institution is asked to investigate — that is their responsibility, not ours; ours is the published record.

Complainants and accused are told the outcome. We do not comment publicly on an ongoing examination.

Editorial independence

Decisions rest on the manuscript. Neither the publisher, nor funders, nor advertisers, nor institutional interest has any part in them.

Submissions from members of the editorial team are handled by an editor with no connection to the authors, who is given full authority over the decision. The article records who handled it.

Data and materials

A synthesis rests on published work, which must be cited in full. Where the authors compiled data in producing the synthesis — a table of extracted results, a search protocol, a screening record — that material must be deposited in a public repository and cited, so that the synthesis can be checked and extended.

Archiving

Content is preserved in the PKP Preservation Network. If the journal ceases to publish, the articles remain available.

Complaints

Complaints about the journal's process, its decisions or its conduct should go to the Editor-in-Chief and receive a substantive reply within twenty working days. A complainant unsatisfied with that reply may take the matter to COPE.