Policy on ethics in publishing
The Revista Agropecuária Catarinense is aligned with best practices for strengthening ethics in scientific publishing, following the guidelines and directives of the COPE (National Council for Scientific and Technological Development), as well as Law No. 9,610 of 1996. The editorial team adheres to the prerogative of ethical conduct at all stages of publication, including after publication, and is obliged to investigate any suspicions of misconduct, whether before or after publication.
Submissions of papers involving studies with human beings and animals must include, along with the manuscript, a copy of the approval and opinion of the Research Ethics Committee.
The following aspects must be considered regarding publication ethics:
Research involving human beings: must follow the guidelines of the respective bodies and be duly registered with the ethics committee of each instance, as set forth in Law No. 14,874 (2024) and Resolution No. 738 (2024) and the Declaration of Helsinki (2013). The approval protocol for research involving human beings can be found on the Brazil Platform.
Research involving animals: The same rule applies to studies involving animals, which must follow the guidelines and be registered with the ethics committee of each institution, as set forth in Law No. 11,794 (2008), Normative Resolution No. 25 (2015) of CONCEA, and the Brazilian Guide for the Breeding, Maintenance, or Use of Animals for Teaching or Scientific Research Activities (2023). The approval protocol for research involving animals can be found on the Brazil Platform.
When submitting work involving both human beings and animals, the author(s) must submit a copy of the approval and the opinion of the Research Ethics Committee.
Research with native species and cultural heritage: Works based on experiments with native species or cultural heritage covered by the Law on Access to Biodiversity and Traditional Knowledge (Law 13.123/2015) and their updates must present their research authorization when required upon submission.
Duplicate publication: This is the practice of publishing the same study with translated versions in different journals, or using the base content, data, tables, or part of the text without citing and referencing the main study, without providing a justification for such conduct.
Similarity checking: For similarity checking purposes, RAC uses the free CopySpider software, and other software, if deemed necessary.
Plagiarism: This is the practice of using parts (text fragments, tables, images, or data from a work) without citing and referencing the source. This is considered misconduct and may be subject to investigation and retraction if identified.
Use of AI: AI can be used to support research. AI is not an author! One must adhere to the conscious and ethical use of these systems. “Hiding the use and content of AI is an ethical lapse that violates the principles of transparency and honesty” (SciELO, 2018, free translation). “AI bots have no notion of reliability, replicability, or 'truth': they simply return [...] produce content that appears factual, but may not be correct” (Levene, 2023, free translation). Responsibility for the content, data, and research rests with the author. RAC considers the use of AI acceptable for text revision, construction of charts and tables, generation of illustrative images, and review of statistical or mathematical calculations, provided that the AI used, the prompt, and the execution date are cited. If the use of AI is essential, prioritize those specifically designed for application in academic work. Authors must declare – at the time of submission – any use of AI, detailing its use in the methodology. RAC does not encourage the use of AI for writing the text, considering this an intellectual activity inherent to human beings.
Erratum: The use of the Errata feature consists of applying corrections or additions to texts that have already been published, with due justification.
Retraction: A retraction is used when problems of plagiarism, self-plagiarism, similarity, data falsification, or other misconduct are identified, whether in parts or in whole.
RAC discourages the practice of plagiarism, self-plagiarism, duplication, manipulation, or fabrication of data, noting that if it identifies or receives a report of practices considered unethical or misconduct – at any stage of the editorial process – the editorial team will initiate an investigation, working with the authors and the journal's board, to investigate, evaluate, and determine the appropriate course of action for each case. RAC reserves the right to request corrections or retractions if any problems are identified in a submitted or published manuscript. In complex cases, RAC may refer the matter to COPE, SCE, and Epagri's legal department for guidance.
Regarding the practices of using AI in scientific research, RAC is continually Specifically, studying policies that include the variety of uses of these tools in research, so that they can adopt changes in their policies, actively monitoring the developments of these practices in research and publications in the agricultural field.
How to appeal and report ethical misconduct in research or by the RAC team.
Appeal against rejection:
The author responsible for the submission may request an appeal by means of a letter written and signed by all authors, to be sent to the journal editors via email: editoriarac@epagri.sc.gov.br. The appeal must be written respectfully, using academic language, and should consider the facts rather than be driven by emotion. It must present a point-by-point refutation of the reviewers' evaluation. It must explain why the editorial decision is believed to be unfair. The appeal must be submitted within 15 calendar days of receiving the rejection decision. The editorial team will verify with the section editor and reviewers whether the appeal can be accepted or if the rejection decision should be upheld, responding to the author(s) within 30 days.
Reporting Ethical Misconduct in Research:
In cases of reported ethical misconduct in research published by RAC, with proof of plagiarism, self-plagiarism, data fabrication, duplicates, and the use of undeclared AI, the complainant must use the journal's formal channel: editoriarac@epagri.sc.gov.br, presenting coherent arguments and supporting evidence of the misconduct. The accused parties will be formally notified of the complaint, and an extraordinary RAC committee (with five members: three external and two internal) will be formed. The designated committee must investigate the situation within 90 days and, if necessary, consult the competent bodies such as COPE, CSE, and Epagri's Legal Department, before issuing an opinion, which must be formally sent to the complainant and the accused. Depending on the situation and the guidance provided in the opinion issued by the extraordinary committee, RAC will adopt the appropriate measures, in accordance with the journal's policies and standards, as well as current Brazilian laws. This process, from the complaint onwards, must be reported on the journal's website, safeguarding the right not to expose those involved, until the situation is investigated.
Reporting ethical misconduct by the RAC team:
To report alleged misconduct involving any direct or indirect member of the team, whether in the submission, management, or publication of the manuscript for RAC, the complainant must use the formal channel of the State Ombudsman's Office (2025), which handles Epagri's requests, ensuring absolute confidentiality and appropriate treatment for each situation. The State Ombudsman's Office receives the complaint, conducts a preliminary analysis of the statement, and forwards it to the Epagri Ombudsman's Office (2025) (legally responsible for the journal). The Epagri Ombudsman's Office receives the complaint and responds to the State Ombudsman's Office, which sends the final administrative decision to the User within a period of up to 30 (thirty) consecutive days, counting from the date of registration of the complaint. This period may be extended for an equal period with express justification and notification to the complainant. As a consequence of a complaint, it will be investigated and any eventual liability will depend on its content and complexity, which will also influence the time frame for its conclusion. The complaint can be made through in-person, telephone, postal and electronic service. The complainant will always be informed, at the end, about the conclusion of the complaint, in addition to receiving intermediate information about the handling. The complainant can also follow the progress of the complaint through the individual protocol at the time of registration of the complaint.
Política redigida com base em:
BRASIL. Lei n. 14.874, de 28 de maio de 2024. Dispõe sobre a pesquisa com seres humanos e institui o Sistema Nacional de Ética em Pesquisa com Seres Humanos. Diário Oficial da União, Brasília, 29 maio 2024. Disponível em: https://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/_Ato2023-2026/2024/Lei/L14874.htm
BRASIL. Lei n. 11.794 de 8 de outubro de 2008. Regulamenta o inciso VII do § 1o do art. 225 da Constituição Federal, estabelecendo procedimentos para o uso científico de animais; revoga a Lei no 6.638, de 8 de maio de 1979; e dá outras providências. Diário Oficial da União, Brasília, 9 out. 2008. Disponível em: https://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/_ato2007-2010/2008/lei/l11794.htm Acesso em: 02 jul. 2025.
BRASIL. Resolução n. 738 de 01 de fevereiro de 2024. Dispõe sobre o uso de bancos de dados com finalidade de pesquisa científica envolvendo seres humanos. Conselho Nacional de Saúde, Brasília, 1 fev. 2024. Disponível em: https://www.gov.br/conselho-nacional-de-saude/pt-br/acesso-a-informacao/sobre-o-conselho/camaras-tecnicas-e-comissoes/conep/legislacao/resolucoes/resolucao-no-738-de-01-de-fevereiro-de-2024 Acesso em: 02 jul. 2025.
BRASIL. CONSELHO NACIONAL DE CONTROLE DE EXPERIMENTAÇÃO ANIMAL. Resolução normativa n. 25, de 29 de set. 2015. Baixa o Capítulo "Introdução Geral" do Guia Brasileiro de Produção, Manutenção ou Utilização de Animais para Atividades de Ensino ou Pesquisa Científica do Conselho Nacional de Controle e Experimentação Animal – CONCEA. Diário Oficial da União, Brasília, 02 out. 2015. Disponível em: https://antigo.mctic.gov.br/mctic/export/sites/institucional/institucional/concea/arquivos/legislacao/resolucoes_normativas/Resolucao-Normativa-CONCEA-n-25-de-29.09.2015-D.O.U.-de-02.10.2015-Secao-I-Pag.-04_ANEXO-retificado-no-DOU-de-06-10-2015.pdf Acesso em: 02 jul. 2025.
BRASIL. MINISTÉRIO DA CIÊNCIA, TECNOLOGIA E INOVAÇÃO. Guia Brasileiro de Produção, Manutenção ou Utilização de Animais para Atividades de Ensino ou Pesquisa Científica. 09 maio, 2023.
Disponível em: https://www.gov.br/mcti/pt-br/composicao/conselhos/concea/paginas/publicacoes-legislacao-e-guia/guia-brasileiro-de-producao-manutencao-ou-utilizacao-de-animais-para-atividades-de-ensino-ou-pesquisa-cientifica Acesso em: 02 jul. 2025.
COPE. Develop guidelines for promptly responding to suspected ethical breaches by authors, reviewers, and editors. 2025. Disponível em: https://publicationethics.org/guidance/guideline/ethics-toolkit-successful-editorial-office/develop-guidelines-responding-suspected-ethical-breaches. Acesso em: 02 jul. 2025.
COPE Council. Authorship and AI tools. Committee on Publication Ethics, 2023. Disponível em: https://publicationethics.org/guidance/cope-position/authorship-and-ai-tools. Acesso em: 02 jul. 2025.
COPE Council. COPE Flowcharts and infographics: Redundant (duplicate) publication in a submitted manuscript. Committee on Publication Ethics (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0). 2022. Disponível em: https://doi.org/10.24318/cope.2019.2.12
COPE Council. COPE Flowcharts and infographics: Plagiarism in a submitted manuscript. Committee on Publication Ethics (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0). 2021a. Disponível em: https://doi.org/10.24318/cope.2019.2.1
COPE Council. COPE Flowcharts and infographics: Plagiarism in a published article. Committee on Publication Ethics (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0). 2021b. Disponível em: https://doi.org/10.24318/cope.2019.2.2
COPE Council. COPE Flowcharts and infographics: Redundant (duplicate) publication in a published article. Committee on Publication Ethics (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0). 2021c. Disponível em: https://doi.org/10.24318/cope.2019.2.13
COUNCIL OF SCIENCE EDITORS - CSE. About. 2025. Disponível em: https://www.councilscienceeditors.org/
EDORIUM JOURNALS. Appeals. 2025. Disponível em: https://www.edoriumjournals.com/ethics-and-policies/#Appeals_Policy. Acesso em: 12 ago. 2025.
EPAGRI. Ouvidoria da Epagri. 2025. Disponível em: https://www.epagri.sc.gov.br/ouvidoria/. Acesso em: 12 ago. 2025.
ESTADO DE SANTA CATARINA. Ouvidoria-Geral do Estado. 2025. Disponível em: https://ouvidoria.sc.gov.br/cidadao/. Acesso em: 12 ago. 2025.
LEVENE, Alysa. Artificial intelligence and authorship. COPE, fev. 2023. Disponível em: https://publicationethics.org/news-opinion/artificial-intelligence-and-authorship
SciELO. Guia para Publicação de Errata. SciELO, 2025. Disponível em: https://wp.scielo.org/wp-content/uploads/guia_errata.pdf
SciELO. Guia para Publicação de Retratação. SciELO, 2025. Disponível em: https://wp.scielo.org/wp-content/uploads/guia_retratacao.pdf
SciELO. Guia para publicação de Adendo. SciELO, 2025. Disponível em: https://wp.scielo.org/wp-content/uploads/guia_adendo.pdf
SciELO. Guide to the Use of Ar ficial Intelligence Tools and Resources in Research Communication on SciELO. SciELO, set., 2023. Disponível em: https://25.scielo.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/2-Susan-Guide-to-the-Use-of-AI-tools-and-resources-20230914-EN.pdf
SciELO. Guia de boas práticas para o fortalecimento da ética na publicação científica. SciELO, set., 2018. Disponível em: https://wp.scielo.org/wp-content/uploads/Guia-de-Boas-Praticas-para-o-Fortalecimento-da-Etica-na-Publicacao-Cientifica.pdf
WORLD MEDICAL ASSOCIATION. WMA Declaration of Helsinki: Ethical Principles for Medical Research Involving Human Participants. 64th WMA General Assembly, Fortaleza, Brazil, October 2013. Disponível em: https://www.wma.net/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/DoH-Oct2013.pdf
