Publication Ethics

Publication Ethics Code of the Journal of the Portuguese Linguistics Association (RAPL)

RAPL adheres to the guidelines for good publication practices outlined in the Code of Conduct and Good Practice Norms for Journal Editors of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE: Committee on Publication Ethics; http://publicationethics.org). In order to ensure the integrity, quality, and credibility of articles published in RAPL, the entire editorial process is governed by the following guidelines and fundamental principles that regulate the activities of editors, authors, and reviewers.

 

1. Integrity and Ethics in Research

1.1. RAPL is committed to promoting integrity and ethics in scientific research, encouraging serious and honest conduct, transparency, and responsibility in all phases of research and publication.

1.2. RAPL does not accept submissions that involve plagiarism, duplicate publication, or any form of ethical misconduct in research.

2. Peer Review Process

2.1. All articles submitted to RAPL undergo a rigorous peer review process, conducted by linguists or experts in related fields with scientific experience in the article's area. Peer-review is single-blind. The anonymity of reviewers is always ensured.

2.2. Reviewers are selected based on their area of expertise. Reviewers are committed to being impartial and maintaining the confidentiality of information related to the reviewed articles.

2.3. Authors have the right to contest the decisions of reviewers, providing a rigorous and respectful justification for their position.

3. Conflicts of Interest

3.1. All authors are required to disclose financial, personal, or institutional conflicts of interest that may influence their research and the publication of results in RAPL.

3.2. RAPL editors and reviewers must also disclose potential conflicts of interest and abstain from evaluating or participating in the review process of articles that may present conflicts of interest. Any of the following situations is considered a conflict and should be avoided: (i) having been/be the doctoral advisor of the author(s) or having been/being advised by the author(s); (ii) receiving professional or personal benefits as a result of the review; (iii) having a personal relationship (including familial or friendship) with the author(s).

4. Originality

4.1. Authors must ensure that submitted articles are original and have not been published in another journal or source. Multiple, recurrent, or redundant publication should be avoided. Any use of third-party materials must be properly cited. Authors must always cite publications that have been influential in the work being presented.

4.2. In case of plagiarism or other gross misconduct, editors follow the COPE guidelines (see the flowchart for plagiarism practices at https://publicationethics.org/resources/flowcharts).

5. Authorship

5.1. Authorship should be limited to individuals who have made significant contributions to the work. All co-authors must be listed, and when considered appropriate, the type of contribution of co-authors should be indicated.

5.2. The corresponding author or first author is responsible for ensuring that all co-authors are aware of the final version of the manuscript and agree to its publication.

6. Correction of Errors and Article Withdrawal

6.1. RAPL is committed to correcting errors or inaccuracies in published articles when necessary. Whenever an author discovers a significant error in an article, it is their obligation to immediately notify the RAPL editorial team and provide the necessary information for correction. A correction notice will be inserted in the published article.

6.2. In cases of proven misconduct, fraud, or serious ethical problems, RAPL reserves the right to retract or withdraw a previously published article.

7. Editorial Transparency

7.1. RAPL aims to maintain transparency in all stages of the editorial process, including publication policies and practices, as well as specific editorial procedures.

7.2. Sources of research and publication funding must be disclosed.

8. Ethical Conduct of the Editorial Board and Guest Editors

8.1. RAPL editors must make editorial decisions based on the quality, relevance, and merit of the articles, without any form of discrimination, such as ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, citizenship, etc., of the authors.

8.2. Editors must maintain the confidentiality of information related to articles under review and ensure the impartiality of the review process.

8.3. Editors have an obligation to assess whether submitted texts contain discriminatory and/or offensive language or content towards a specific social group and prevent them from entering the review process.

 

9. Ethical Approval

9.1. Authors commit to obtaining informed, written consent from participants in research involving human beings or their legal representatives whenever ethically recommended. Authors must obtain approval from an ethics committee. When necessary, the article's Methodology section should include the project's identification code and/or ethical approval reference, the approval date, and the name of the ethics committee or institutional review board.

 

This Publication Ethics Code represents RAPL's commitment to integrity and ethics in research and academic publication. We expect all authors, reviewers, and invited editors involved to adhere to these principles.