Ethics Policy and Misconduct in Publication

The Sítio Novo Journal follows the guidelines set forth in the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Code of Conduct, and in accordance with the provisions below.

Chief Editor, Assistant Editor, and Editorial Board Responsibilities

The editors of the Sítio Novo Journal, including members of the Editorial Board, must act in accordance with best editorial practices, prevent any form of scientific misconduct, and promote ethics in publishing, as per the provisions below.

I – Evaluate submitted manuscripts exclusively based on their content and relevance to the journal’s scope, without considering authors’ origin or characteristics such as gender, race, sexual orientation, religion, political stance, institutional affiliation, nationality, or political philosophy.

II – Ensure editorial independence, so that decisions about manuscript publication are not driven by external influences from outside the journal.

III – Ensure that all manuscripts accepted for publication have been reviewed by at least two subject‑matter experts and have received proper evaluations. They are responsible for the final decision on publication, relying on the opinions of the Scientific Editorial Committee members or ad hoc reviewers and strictly observing legal requirements regarding defamation, copyright infringement, and plagiarism.

IV – Treat all information about submitted manuscripts as confidential, with no disclosure to anyone not involved in the editorial process, and no use of unpublished manuscripts’ ideas or information without explicit, written permission from the authors.

V – Declare any conflicts of interest that may exist due to competitive, collaborative, or other relationships with manuscript authors or their institutions, and refrain from handling the editorial process for such manuscripts.

VI – Verify the ethical aspects of manuscripts so that all to be published meet research ethics requirements, particularly for studies involving humans or animals.

VII – Respond appropriately to any raised ethical concerns regarding submitted or published manuscripts. All suspected misconduct cases must be investigated following COPE guidelines. For published articles, if necessary, the most appropriate corrective action—erratum, expression of concern, or retraction—must be taken.

Authors’ Responsibilities

By submitting a manuscript to Sítio Novo, authors must ensure it has not been previously published or simultaneously submitted elsewhere. The journal accepts submissions of articles published in preprint repositories; authors must disclose preprint details at submission by completing the Open Science Compliance Form.

Authors are responsible for:

I – Ensuring the study report is detailed, accurate, and objective, using reporting guidelines whenever possible.

II – Properly citing and referencing all text and ideas that are not original. Plagiarism in any form is unacceptable and ethically wrong.

III – Providing access to the study’s raw data, either openly or exclusively for review purposes upon request, to meet ethical requirements for research data availability. The journal encourages depositing research data in appropriate repositories to support preservation, attribution, and reuse.

IV – Declaring any potential conflicts of interest that could influence study conduct, reporting, or the editorial process. The Conflict of Interests Declaration must be used for this purpose.

V – Disclosing each author’s individual contribution. Authorship should be given only to those who made significant contributions and meet authorship criteria, including taking responsibility for the article’s content and integrity. Contributors with other roles should be acknowledged (with consent) but not listed as authors. The CRediT (Contributor Roles Taxonomy) form must be used for this purpose.

VI – The corresponding author submitting the work must ensure that all authors have reviewed the final version and agreed to its submission to Sítio Novo.

VII – Indicating in the manuscript the ethics committee approval details (e.g., protocol number) for studies involving human or animal participants. For human studies, authors must also state whether participants gave informed consent.

IX – Collaborating in the peer review process. When revisions are requested, authors should respond organized point by point and submit the revised version within the allotted timeframe and following guidelines.

X – Communicating through the Sítio Novo journal system for any questions or matters regarding their submission.

If authors identify errors or inaccuracies in a submitted or published article, they must promptly notify the Editorial Team. For published articles, they must assist in the appropriate correction—erratum, expression of concern, or retraction—in line with COPE guidelines.

Responsibilities of the Scientific Editorial Committee and Ad Hoc Reviewers

Peer review is essential to scientific publishing, assisting editors in making publication decisions and improving study reports. Sítio Novo believes that all participants in science should contribute to peer review.

All reviewers must comply with COPE recommendations and the following provisions:

I – Declare any conflict of interest arising from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships with manuscript authors or their institutions, and recuse themselves from reviewing such manuscripts.

II – Agree to review only manuscripts for which they have sufficient expertise to provide an adequate evaluation on time.

III – Immediately notify editors if they lack the knowledge or availability to review a manuscript, so alternate reviewers can be invited.

IV – Treat all information about submitted manuscripts as confidential, with no disclosure to anyone outside the editorial process, or use of unpublished authors’ ideas without explicit written permission. They must recognize that plagiarism in peer review is misconduct.

V – Evaluate manuscripts solely based on content and relevance to the journal’s scope, without considering authors’ characteristics such as gender, race, sexual orientation, religion, political stance, or institutional affiliation.

VI – Provide objective and constructive reviews to improve manuscripts, refraining from hostile or personal criticism.

VII – Alert editors to any suspected scientific misconduct—e.g., similarity to previously published or submitted material, inadequate citation, data fabrication or manipulation, or violations of research ethics involving humans or animals.

Editorial Team Members’ Responsibilities

All members of the Sítio Novo Editorial Team must follow COPE’s Code of Conduct and the following provisions:

I – Ensure that all information about submissions and editorial workflow is confidential, with no disclosure to anyone outside the process, and not use ideas from unpublished manuscripts without permission. Editorial-process plagiarism is misconduct.

II – Declare any conflicts of interest, including with manuscript authors, their institutions, or other team members, and refrain from duties when conflicts exist.

Responsibilities of the Sponsoring Institution

The Federal Institute of Tocantins, the journal’s sponsoring institution, must follow COPE’s Code of Conduct and the provisions below:

I – Ensure the editorial independence of Sítio Novo.

II – Provide necessary support for the journal’s maintenance, including infrastructure and trained personnel.

III – Uphold the COPE commitment to ensure the journal’s digital archive’s access, visibility, and preservation.

Accountability Measures

Based on Sítio Novo’s ethics and editorial misconduct policy, actions may be taken in case of suspected violations. The following procedures should initially be observed:

I – Assign an Editorial Team member to assess the reported or suspected misconduct, gathering information, verifying evidence, and hearing involved parties.

a) If the concern involves authors or reviewers, the investigation may be led by the Editor‑in‑Chief, an Editorial Board member, or the Assistant Editor, provided there’s no conflict of interest.

b) If it involves an Editorial Team member, another team member (nominated by the Editor‑in‑Chief or Editorial Board) will conduct the inquiry, also without conflicts.

II – Formal communication must be sent to parties involved (authors, reviewers, or editorial team) with a deadline to present statements and supporting documentation.

III – Based on collected evidence, the process should be concluded with applicable sanctions according to the journal’s guidelines and COPE.

Applicable Sanctions

If a violation is confirmed in line with Sítio Novo’s ethics policy and COPE’s Code of Conduct, the following sanctions may apply:

– Editorial Team members acting contrary to best practices or involved in misconduct may be removed from their role and publicly notified in the journal. They may also face civil or criminal liability if applicable.

I – The journal may take additional measures, including legal action, if editorial misconduct causes harm to the publication, its readers, authors, collaborators, or sponsoring institution.

– Authors involved in misconduct may face sanctions depending on severity, including civil and criminal liability, as per the following:

I – Manuscripts may be immediately rejected at any stage if plagiarism, self‑plagiarism, data fabrication, omission of conflicts, or other unethical behavior is detected.

II – For published articles, retraction, erratum, or expression of concern may be issued, publicly available on the journal’s website and noted in the original article.

III – Authors may be temporarily barred from submitting new manuscripts for a defined period depending on severity.

IV – The journal may formally notify the authors’ institution of the ethical violation.

V – Authorship may be revised, requesting correction or removal of names not meeting criteria.

VI – In cases of repeated or severe infractions, authors may be permanently barred from publishing in the journal.

VII – Additional measures—including legal action—may be taken if authors’ misconduct harms the publication, readers, collaborators, or the sponsoring institution.

– Ad hoc reviewers and Scientific Editorial Committee members may also face actions for misconduct such as:

I – Failure to declare conflicts and detection of bias may lead to removal from reviewer database and exclusion from future reviews.

II – Missing accepted reviews without notice may result in temporary suspension from collaboration.

III – Unauthorized disclosure of confidential information or misuse of manuscript ideas is grave misconduct, leading to:

a) Immediate removal;
b) Editorial note publication;
c) Notification to affiliated institution;
d) Legal action if rights are violated.

IV – Plagiarism or content appropriation during review leads to permanent exclusion and reporting to the institution and, if necessary, COPE.

V – Offensive, discriminatory, or unconstructive reviews may incur formal warning; repeated violations may result in suspension or dismissal.

VI – Reviewers acting outside their competency area may be warned or derecognized.

VII – Failure to report suspected misconduct may be considered serious negligence, resulting in warning or dismissal.

VIII – The journal reserves the right to pursue additional measures—including legal—if actions by ad hoc reviewers or Editorial Committee members damage the publication, readers, authors, collaborators, or institution.

All decisions must be well-founded, documented, and recorded in the journal’s system, ensuring the right to defense and contradictory argument.