Research Ethics Policy

Corrections, Retractions and Deletions

The guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and the Council of Science Editors (CSE) are followed for the correction of documents. Based on these sources, there are three methods for correcting scientific literature:

  • Errata: refers to amendments or changes to parts of the document’s content. Corrections may be in the title of the document, names of authors and typographical or layout errors.
  • Retraction: refers to partial corrections to the content of the document due to methodological errors, incorrect data analysis, scientific misconduct, or non-reproducible research. There is also the possibility of removing the document in its entirety from the RIPPMar page.
  • Expression of Concern: refers to the publication of a notice by the Editorial Team when there is concern about the reliability of a document, but the information is insufficient to justify a retraction.

As defined by the Office of Research Integrity (ORI), plagiarism can include “[...] theft or misappropriation of intellectual property and the substantial unattributed textual copying of another person’s work”. It can be stated that plagiarism clearly occurs when a significant part of a text is cut and presented without correct attribution of authorship.

The reuse of parts of text from the author's own previous publication is a form of self-plagiarism or in the most commonly used terminology 'content recycling' and also deserves caution. When reusing a text, whether written by yourself or others, it is necessary to attribute the citations correctly.

The Editorial Team analyzes all communications that highlight significant or non-significant problems in a publication. The correction request must be sent to the email: rippmar.marilia@unesp.br. If the Editorial Team confirms the allegations, they may ask the author to correct specific errors or mistakes, or they may consider retracting a publication, based on the COPE and CSE guidelines for document correction.

The Editorial Team may consider retracting a publication when:

  1. Authors refuse to correct errors or mistakes when requested by the Editorial Team.
  2. Clear evidence that the search results are unreliable, whether as a result of robust error, fabrication (e.g. of information) or falsification (e.g. image manipulation).
  3. There is plagiarism, self-plagiarism, or redundant publication.
  4. The research results were previously published elsewhere and there is no citation, communication of the fact to the Editorial Team, permission to publish again or justification.
  5. Contains information or materials without authorization for use.
  6. Copyright has been infringed or there is some other relevant legal issue (for example, using images without permission).
  7. Presents unethical research.
  8. It was published solely based on a compromised or manipulated peer review.
  9. The author did not communicate a relevant conflict of interest that, from the perspective of the Editorial Team, would have unduly affected the interpretations of the document or the recommendations of the Editors and ad hoc evaluators.

The Editorial Team does not consider retracting a publication when:

  1. There is dispute over the authorship of the publication, but there is no reason to doubt the validity of the research results.
  2. The main research results are still reliable, and an adjustment can correct any errors.
  3. The Editorial Team has inconclusive evidence to support the retraction or is awaiting additional information, such as that from institutional investigation.
  4. The author's conflict of interest was communicated to the journal after publication, but from the Editorial Team's perspective it does not influence the interpretations or conclusions presented in the document.

The request and writing of the correction must be made by the author responsible for the document. If there is disagreement between the authors about what is being corrected, the RIPPMar Editorial Team becomes responsible for writing the correction. The errata, retraction or expression of concern is published as quickly as possible, with the document remaining on the journal page with the corresponding indication of correction.

It should also be noted that documents that present a similarity rate above 40% with other published texts will be analyzed in more depth, in order to verify whether there has actually been text plagiarism or inaccuracies regarding the citation of the original. If there is proof of an unethical attitude, the text is rejected.

Ethical Aspects

For content resulting from academic-scientific research involving human beings, the author must identify the research ethics committee that approved the methodological procedures, as well as confirm that it was carried out in accordance with the guidelines of the place that hosted it and include in the submission the approval documents from the research ethics committee and the informed consent document from the parties involved. In addition, you must inform the end note of the scientific document, which is being submitted to the RIPPMAR journal, the approval number by the Ethics Committee.

The author must write in own handwriting a statement of the circumstances of authorization for studies involving vulnerable groups, whose consent may not have been fully informed due to the surrounding conditions of the research.

To deal with the identification of sex and gender, the author must follow the Sex and Gender Equity in Research (SAGER) guidelines and use the terms sex (biological attribute) and gender (formed by social and cultural circumstances) with care so as not to confuse the two terms.

Use of Artificial Intelligence

If the author uses generative artificial intelligence, such as ChatGPT, he must inform how it was used: to generate a summary, to generate an image, etc. Furthermore, it must be referenced correctly, in accordance with the ABNT standard.

To cite information from ChatGPT, you must follow the following guidelines:

  1. As author, cite ‘OpenAI’ or ‘ChatGPT’.
  2. Include the access date, which could be the date you used ChatGPT to obtain the information.
  3. Provide a clear description of ChatGPT as the source, for example:
  • If you are citing a specific ChatGPT answer, please include the question that was asked and provide the answer generated by the template.
  • If the information was obtained from a specific ChatGPT template, include the template name or version, such as "ChatGPT-3".
  1. If possible, include the link to ChatGPT so that editors, reviewers, and readers can access the original source.

Examples:

OpenAI. What is open science? GPT-3.5 version 25 Sep. 2023. Artificial Intelligence. Available at: https://chat.openai.com/. Accessed on: 01 Jan. 2024.

ChatPDF GmbH. What is the significance of beta-defensin 118 in the defense against Candida infection? GPT-3.5 version 2023. Artificial Intelligence. Available at: https://www.chatpdf.com/. Accessed on: 01 Jan. 2024.