Política Editorial

Responsibility of the Editors

Guided by the Code of Conduct and Best Practices of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), the editors of Outramargem comply with legal guidelines on plagiarism and copyright infringement in the evaluation process of materials submitted to the journal, rejecting and reporting any discriminatory practices based on authors’ ideological orientation, religious belief, sexual orientation, gender, skin color, ethnic background, place of birth, or regional origin. The journal encourages its editors to report any practices by editorial members that may eventually violate the legal requirements set forth by the COPE Code of Conduct and Best Practices. The editors of Outramargem are strictly prohibited from disclosing, prior to possible publication, any information about the materials submitted to the journal or their authors. In the event of conflicts of interest, editors commit to appointing a new editor capable of impartiality for the proper conduct of the evaluation and publication process. In cases of inappropriate subject matter, restricted institutional affiliations, or other unforeseen occurrences, however, editors reserve the right to delay publication or reject the materials received. It is the editors’ duty to take appropriate legal measures in cases of disputes concerning received or published materials. All submitted texts are analyzed by the editorial team using similarity detection tools (such as iThenticate) to verify any potential misconduct in research work. Before any decision, the results of the editorial examination are internally discussed by the editorial team and diagnosed always based on the Code of Conduct and Best Practices adopted by the journal. Editors are also responsible for maintaining the confidentiality of received materials, as well as preserving the anonymity of authors and reviewers reciprocally.

Responsibility of the Authors

Aware that plagiarism and copyright violations are unacceptable to the journal and to other spheres of intellectual production, upon submitting their work for evaluation, authors accept the terms of responsibility, guaranteeing the originality of their material, as well as the proper citation of third-party images or texts. Authorship is understood to apply only to works that present relevant contributions to a given topic, a specific area, or an interpretation of the research reported in the submitted approach. Accordingly, it is the authors’ responsibility to properly acknowledge the sources used in the text, and it is the duty of the corresponding author to indicate co-authors, ensuring their consent for submission and possible publication of the material. In cases of inaccuracies or errors in the published version of the text, authors shall inform and participate in corrections or the formulation of errata together with the editors responsible for publication. Notwithstanding, research works funded by public agencies or private sources shall be disclosed by the authors in a footnote in the text submitted for evaluation and publication.

Responsibility of the Reviewers

Aware of the confidentiality of works submitted for technical analysis, our reviewers are responsible for maintaining secrecy and for not sharing any information regarding the work under review or its authors. In cases of omission concerning ideas and sources used in the texts, it falls to the reviewer to identify and communicate to the editors any substantial similarities to other published works. During the text evaluation process, the reviewer shall examine: (i) the linguistic and grammatical correctness of the work; (ii) compliance with the proposed theme, in the case of thematic issues; (iii) the coherence and accuracy in articulating theoretical frameworks; (iv) the structural, argumentative, and material cohesion of the text; (v) the relevance and timeliness of the bibliographic references used; (vi) the originality and effective contribution to the field of the research. All our reviewers are invited to observe and communicate ethical aspects and any deviations from conduct regarding the substance and originality of the texts under review. Furthermore, the editorial team considers and monitors the intellectual background, performance, and expertise of reviewers in order to preserve the excellence of publications. In cases of low-quality reviews, unjustified delays beyond deadlines, or inelegant evaluative comments, the editorial team may recommend the discontinuation and replacement of the reviewer in question, always based on diagnoses grounded in the COPE Code of Conduct and Best Practices. The appointment of national and international reviewers is an ongoing task carried out by the editorial members of Outramargem.

Double-Blind Peer Review Process

Submitted texts will only be evaluated upon compliance with the Norms and Guidelines for Publication adopted by the journal. Based on this condition, editors will forward the texts to two ad hoc reviewers, and, in the case of substantial disparity between the reviews, a third reviewer will be appointed to mediate the identified divergence. Recommendations to accept, reject, or improve the evaluated text are the prerogatives of the reviewers. All comments, suggestions, and information added to texts submitted for evaluation are the sole responsibility of the reviewers. Authors will always be contacted in case of recommendations for improvement, substantial modifications, or corrections to the evaluated text. In all cases, as provided in the Code of Conduct and Best Practices adopted by the journal, the names and information of authors and reviewers will be kept confidential by the editors, who are equally responsible for fully following the standard evaluation and publication process adopted by the journal.