Corrections, Retractions, and Post-Publication Issues
The Revista de Ensino em Artes, Moda e Design adheres to rigorous ethical standards and is deeply committed to the academic and scientific integrity of its publications. The journal remains open to post-publication review processes, allowing readers, reviewers, and members of the scientific community to raise concerns regarding the integrity or accuracy of any published article.
In cases where ethical issues, such as plagiarism, data falsification, or significant errors, are identified—or where technical issues, such as methodological flaws, arise—the editorial team will investigate these matters in accordance with the guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and may take corrective action as necessary. If misconduct is confirmed, a formal retraction will be issued and publicly disclosed to uphold the integrity of the academic record. Detailed information on the retraction process is available in the COPE guidelines.
Data Preservation
Authors are required to retain raw research data for a minimum period of five years following publication, ideally within secure data repositories, to ensure availability in any post-publication review process.
1. Issue Identification
I. Who may raise a concern? Concerns may be raised by anyone involved in the editorial process or by readers regarding published articles. Concerns may include issues such as plagiarism, data fabrication, redundant publication, or other ethical or methodological breaches.
II. Initial Action: Concerns can be reported confidentially to the editor-in-chief via email or through a designated complaints' portal.
2. Preliminary Assessment
I. Merit Assessment: The editorial team will conduct an initial evaluation to assess the credibility and relevance of the claim. COPE advocates for an impartial and objective approach to avoid unjust harm to the parties involved.
II. Data Confirmation: The editor may request additional information or clarifications from the authors, who are expected to provide all relevant data or documentation, as per standard editorial practices, including storing raw data for five years post-publication.
3. Consultation with an Integrity Committee
I. Integrity Committee: If the case is complex, it may be referred to a dedicated committee. This committee may include editors, methodological experts, and, if necessary, legal support.
II. Claim Evaluation: COPE recommends a thorough investigation based on substantial evidence, which may include statistical analyses, similarity checks (using tools like iThenticate), or a review of methodology.
4. Determination of Action
I. Potential Outcomes:
a) Statement of Concern: If the issue cannot be immediately resolved, a statement of concern may be issued to inform readers of the ongoing investigation.
b) Retraction: In cases of confirmed serious misconduct, such as plagiarism or data fabrication, the article will be formally retracted. The retraction notice will be clearly linked to the original article and will specify the reason for retraction.
c) Correction (Erratum): For minor errors, such as data inaccuracies or methodological clarifications, an erratum may be issued to correct the article without the need for retraction.
5. Formal Retraction
I. Retraction Publication: The retraction notice must be prominently linked to the original article. COPE recommends retaining the original article in the journal archive but marking it as “retracted” to preserve the academic record.
II. Notification: In addition to publishing the retraction, all relevant parties—including authors, affiliated institutions, and funding agencies—will be notified of the decision.
6. Post-Retraction Procedures
I. Consequences: For severe cases of misconduct, COPE suggests involving academic institutions and funding bodies to take further action.
II. Transparency and Confidentiality: The process will balance transparency with confidentiality, especially in cases where misconduct is not confirmed.
7. Data and Documentation Review
I. Data Requests: Authors must ensure the availability of raw research data, securely stored for at least five years, as required for thorough review processes. Failure to provide such data may raise concerns about the research’s integrity.
II. Audit: In complex cases, an audit may be conducted, potentially involving external reviewers or institutions, to ensure procedural transparency.
Examples of Scenarios
• Plagiarism: If similarity analysis (such as with iThenticate) reveals plagiarism, a full retraction is required. The article will be marked as "retracted," and the involved authors’ institutions will be notified.
• Unintentional Methodological Errors: In cases of correctable technical errors, an erratum will suffice, accompanied by an explanatory note and the necessary correction.
• Duplicate Publication: For cases of redundant publication, the article will be retracted, and all associated parties will be informed to maintain transparency and avoid any suggestion of deliberate misconduct.
Additional Information:
The minimum timeline for the evaluation process (from submission to final approval) is approximately three months, though this period may vary depending on the specifics of each case.
