Código de ética

CODE OF ETHICS

VESTÍGIOS - LATIN AMERICAN JOURNAL OF HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY

 

VESTÍGIOS - Latin-American Journal of Historical Archaeology adheres to the Code of Conduct and Best Practices defined by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and the document titled “Guidelines: retraction guidelines” (Committee on Publication Ethics, 2019), with the purpose of defining good and bad publishing practices, as well as guiding, clarifying, and promoting ethics in scientific communication. These guidelines are applicable to everyone involved, including editors, authors, reviewers, and readers.

 

We emphasize that the Essential Practices defined here should be considered alongside specific national and international codes of conduct for research and are not intended to replace them. As a journal that receives articles from various countries in Latin America and focuses on Historical Archaeology, we strive to adhere to the ethics codes of journals with characteristics similar to VESTÍGIOS and rely on their respective Codes of Conduct and Best Practices, such as the Revista de Arqueología Histórica y Latinoamericana, published and edited by the Asociación de Arqueólogos Profesionales de la República Argentina (AAPRA); the journal ARQUEOLOGÍA edited by the Institute of Archaeology of the Faculty of Philosophy and Letters of the University of Buenos Aires (UBA); the Revista de Arqueologia managed by the Brazilian Society of Archaeology (SAB); and the Bulletin of the Paraense Emílio Goeldi Museum. Human Sciences (BMPEG.CH) of the Editorial Board Bulletins (NUEBL). Additionally, we refer to scientific articles, dissertations, and theses that develop diagnostics of national and international journals, including Monteiro et al. (2004); Goldim (2006); Rego and Palácios (2008); Oliveira (2012); Morris et al., 2013; Damásio (2017); Panzolini and Demartini (2020); Beltrão (2022).

 

By constructing and disseminating this Code of Ethics for Vestígios - Latin American Journal of Historical Archaeology, we ensure the credibility and visibility of the journal through the excellence and transparency of the editorial process, and the quality of the publications. We aim to respect the content and integrity of the published works.

 

Allegations of Misconduct, Complaints, and Appeals

 

In a doctoral thesis titled “Misconduct Practices in Scientific Communication and the Editorial Process: A Study with SciELO Scientific Journal Editors” Edilson Damásio (2017) points out that there is no specific legislation addressing integrity and citing issues of scientific misconduct in any country. There are guidelines and, at most, ethical regulations (Damásio, 2017, p.21). In Brazil, we highlight the guidelines developed by commissions such as the CNPq - National Council for Scientific and Technological Development, and the Code of Good Practices of FAPESP, in addition to the previously mentioned references of journals with characteristics similar to VESTÍGIOS.

 

In line with the researched bibliography and our daily practice as the editorial team of the JOURNAL, we understand that the concept of misconduct pre-publication and post-publication encompasses a wide variety of “crimes against truth committed by scientists” (Damásio, 2017, 51). Therefore, they involve undeclared conflicts of interest, falsification and fabrication of results, (self)plagiarism and/or theft of ideas, data, or texts, authorship, co-authorship, and scientific contributions issues, among many others. The definitions of the terms and concepts are found in specialized dictionaries and reference works, such as the Oxford Reference (2016), the Council of Science Editors (CSE, 2012), and the Handbook of Journal Publishing, published by Cambridge University Press (MORRIS et al., 2013), among others.

 

In Brazil, the National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq) published the Research Integrity Commission Report (CNPq, 2011) addressing the topic and containing definitions that can be readily consulted if necessary or in case of doubts. The SAB Archaeology Journal adopts the proposal of the Council of Science Editors and highlights falsification (alteration/distortion); data and image fabrication; unauthorized or unreferenced partial or total copying of a text (plagiarism); authorship and co-authorship in publications without effective contribution to the text, or omission of authors who contributed to the development of the work. Monteiro and colleagues (2004) highlight that the most recurring irregularities are “invited” authorship and/or co-authorship, “pressured” authorship and/or co-authorship, and “ghost” authorship and/or co-authorship (Monteiro et al, 2004: p.IV).

 

Cases of allegations and reports of pre-publication and/or post-publication misconduct will be analyzed, with corrections and/or retractions made when necessary. Reports can be sent to the email vestigios@fafich.ufmg.br (with the subject line specifying “misconduct report”), and corrections and retractions will follow the procedures defined by the COPE “Retraction Guidelines”. We emphasize that all allegations will be treated seriously, and if a report is made against a member of the editorial committee (editorial board or editors) or the entire editorial team, they will be prevented from participating in the investigation, and the report will be evaluated by an external committee created for this purpose. This external committee will be formed by editorial members of other archaeology journals, ethics committees of archaeological scientific societies, and who have no conflict of interest with the involved parties, namely: journals with characteristics similar to Vestígios, as referenced in the introduction, and ethics committees of archaeological scientific societies in Latin America.

 

Authorship and Contribution

 

Following the guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), we intend to make our policies on transparency about who contributed to the work and in what capacity evident, defining authorship and contribution requirements, as well as processes related to managing potential disputes.

In terms of definition, authorship of publications is considered to be the direct intellectual contribution to the conception and writing of the work, according to principles defined by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Additionally, the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (1985) recommends that authorship be based on the following criteria:

(1) substantial contributions to the conception or design of the study; or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of the work's data; (2) drafting the article or critically revising it for important intellectual content; (3) final approval of the version to be published; (4) agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work, ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved (ICMJE, 1985, p.2).

 

Generally, authorship of a manuscript is attributed to those who submit the text to the journal, and they are responsible for the published content. Authorship has "academic, social, and financial repercussions" (ICMJE, 1985, p.1) for authors and contributors.

 

Valuing transparency in the editorial process, VESTÍGIOS does not allow the submission of articles by active members of the Editorial Committee.

 

To specify how each author contributed to the development of the work, we follow the parameters set out in the “Policies and Guidelines for Authors” available at: https://beta.elsevier.com/researcher/author/policies-and-guidelines/credit-author-statement?trial=true and presented in the table below. Each author may have more than one form of contribution, and these must be specified when submitting the manuscript. Among these contributions, we highlight:

 

TERM	DEFINITION
Supervision	Responsibility for supervision, guidance, management, and coordination of the planning and execution of the research activity.
Formal Analysis	Application and creation of statistical, mathematical, physicochemical, computational, or other techniques to analyze or synthesize the diversity of information from the research conducted.
Acquisition of funding	Acquisition of financial support for the project that led to this publication.
Conceptualization	Theoretical and conceptual foundations, formulation, and monitoring of research procedures and objectives.
Original Draft	Preparation, creation, and/or writing of the work to be submitted for publication, including the structuring of ideas in the text and the drafting of the initial draft.
Review and Editing of the work to be published.	Preparation, creation, and critical review, including pre- or post-publication stages.
Writing	Responsible or directly responsible individuals for writing the work to be submitted, which therefore involves drafting the initial draft or the revision.
Research and Methodology	Conducting a research and investigation process by specifically carrying out experiments or collecting data/evidence through archaeological methods, including interventions at sites, material analyses, interviews, participant observation, gathering primary and secondary data, and others. It also includes participation in defining the methodology.
Resources	Provision of study materials, reagents, materials, samples, computing resources, or other analytical tools.
Software	Programming, software development; design of computer programs; implementation of code and supporting algorithms.
Graphic Elements	Preparation, creation, and/or editing of images, tables, graphs, charts, diagrams, and other graphic elements, including data and figure editing for visual presentation.
Others	Describe the assigned function.

 

In the event of any disputes regarding the “Authorship and Contribution” of a manuscript, we will follow the procedures outlined in the “Allegations of Misconduct” section to address any type of dispute.

 

Conflicts of Interest / Competing Interests

 

Discussions surrounding issues involving conflicts of interest in research and publications have been steadily increasing and are extremely necessary today (Goldim, 2006; Rego & Palácios, 2008). Definitions of conflicts of interest, however, tend to primarily relate to funding and research sponsors, and secondarily to scientific, public, and community interests. In general terms, Thompson (cited in Goldim, 2006, p. 01) points out that “it refers to the set of conditions in which a professional's judgment regarding a primary interest tends to be unduly influenced by a secondary interest.”

 

Specifically, the guidelines present in the “COPE Code of Conduct and Best Practices” (https://publicationethics.org/guidance/Flowcharts), to which *Vestígios* adheres, highlight three aspects of conflict of interest: (1) the existence of family relations with any of the co-authors; (2) the existence of supervisory, advising, or co-advising relationships with any of the co-authors; and (3) the existence of any type of collaboration between the reviewer and the research under consideration.

 

To this restricted understanding, according to some authors and studies, have been added the competing interests “related to academic prestige, institutional power, peer and societal recognition, in addition to those arising from the vicissitudes of human relationships” (Rego & Palácios, 2008, p. 281).

 

The responsibilities for identifying and managing conflicts of interest in scientific publications are shared between authors, editors, reviewers, the scientific board, and sponsors, with all of these actors potentially involved in situations of conflict of interest (Rego & Palácios, 2008, p. 282).

 

In cases where a researcher’s scientific judgment may be affected by competing interests or conflicts of interest, authors must inform the editor at the time of manuscript submission, in the field titled “Comments to the Editor,” of any relevant information to ensure the integrity of the editorial process.

 

If a conflict of interest or competing interest regarding the text to be reviewed is identified by the editors and/or invited reviewers, they must decline participation in the evaluation process.

 

We emphasize that manuscripts under review cannot be cited under any circumstances, and the information contained in them cannot be used in any way until they have been accepted for publication.

 

Data and Reproducibility

 

The journal establishes as policy that information about methods, materials, research data, protocols, program codes, scripts used in statistics, and field and lab notebooks (explicitly mentioned in the text) should be made available to any researcher who wishes to reproduce or replicate the procedures.

 

Reproducibility in research aims to allow the work to be replicated by other researchers at different times to compare results based on common parameters. In human sciences, the “degree” of reproducibility does not imply replicating experiments identically (https://cienciaaberta.usp.br/reprodutibilidade-na-ciencia/); its goal is to ensure the public disclosure of information as a fundamental principle of Open Science. Open Science is a global movement, encouraged by UNESCO, that seeks to make research and scientific data accessible to all. Thus, making methods, materials, protocols, program codes, scripts used in statistics, field and lab notebooks, primary records related to the research process, or raw data generated in the investigation available are practices that promote greater access to scientific knowledge, foster greater cooperation, and encourage the reuse of information and social/scientific inclusion (https://www.unesco.org/pt/fieldoffice/brasilia/expertise/open-science-brazil).

 

Considering that the OJS system hosting *Vestígios* does not have digital support for storing some of this data, the use of public repositories is advised, where such information can be deposited. Public digital repositories store data in a standardized and organized manner, facilitating research and future use by interested parties. As recommended by the **Revista de Arqueologia da SAB**, we suggest:

 

Using reliable repositories that adhere to policies making data discoverable, accessible, usable, and preserved in the long term, and that also assign unique and persistent identifiers. Repositories and websites maintained by authors will also be considered as long as they are publicly accessible (https://revista.sabnet.org/ojs/index.php/sab).

 

Regardless of the chosen repository, the link providing access to the deposited information must be included in the text body and/or in the article’s bibliographic references.

 

In specific contexts where data or material cannot be disclosed for legal or ethical reasons, we suggest that authors declare this limitation at the time of manuscript submission. It is also advisable that the author shares the data with *Vestígios*. However, with the submitted justification, the editorial board commits to not publicly disclosing the data or to doing so in a restricted manner, protecting confidential and proprietary information. Each case will be assessed by the editorial board to decide whether or not to share the data.

 

Ethical Oversight

 

“VESTÍGIOS” adheres to the “Code of Ethics of the Brazilian Archaeological Society” and the “SAB Journal”, which state that "the political, economic, social, cultural, and environmental impact of archaeological knowledge and research in the areas of study, respecting cultural, political, and social norms, as well as the dignity of the groups involved in any stage of archaeological work, must be considered in submissions to the journal."

 

We understand the specificities of research in “Humanities and Social Sciences (HSS)” and the need for less homogenizing ethical regulatory instruments that take into account and include HSS. It is important to highlight that there is dissatisfaction in different countries with the use and adequacy of biomedical research ethics regulatory instruments, which are often inappropriate for HSS (Guerreiro & Minayo, 2019: 300).

 

Resolution No. 510, of April 7, 2016, of the Brazilian National Health Council "provides for the applicable standards for research in the Human and Social Sciences whose methodological procedures involve the use of data directly obtained from participants or identifiable information or that may entail greater risks than those encountered in daily life."

 

In addition to addressing the ethical principles of research in HSS, presenting the main terms and definitions, exceptions, contents, and forms, it also discusses free and informed consent and assent, covered in Chapter III. Regarding the Registration of Consent and Assent, Article 15 of Resolution No. 510, dated April 7, 2016, states:

 

"Article 15. The Registration of Consent and Assent is the means by which the participant's or their legal representative's free and informed consent is explicitly given, in writing, audio, imagery, or other forms that meet the characteristics of the research and participants, and must contain information in clear and easy-to-understand language to adequately explain the research."

 

Therefore, it is essential that research in Historical Archaeology, specifically, and HSS, in general, that involves people, communities, and living human populations, have consent and, ideally, the participation and collaboration present in all stages and activities of research.

 

For the use of information, texts, images, sounds, or other forms and sources in the dissemination and publication of partial and final research results, we recommend presenting a document that proves the agreement of the individuals and groups involved.

 

In the case of research related to indigenous peoples, quilombolas, and other so-called traditional communities, in addition to the aforementioned documents, authors must comply with the guidelines of Convention 169 of the International Labour Organization (ILO), 1989.

 

When it comes to research involving animals, it is crucial to minimize their use and to suppress pain, suffering, and stress.

 

The aforementioned situations will be supervised by the journal’s Editorial Board. If necessary, documents, information, and clarifications may be requested.

 

VESTÍGIOS also guarantees the confidentiality and non-disclosure of the information related to this topic provided by authors at the time of submission.

 

Intellectual Property, Copyright, and Collective Works

 

According to Brazilian law, particularly Law No. 9,610/98, which addresses the copyright of intellectual and artistic creations, intellectual property is a broad term that includes, among others, industrial property and copyright. Given the scope of VESTÍGIOS, this document will focus on the topic of copyright, which is one of the types of intellectual property.

 

Internationally, copyright has significant legal milestones, both historically—such as the Statute of Anne (1710), the Berne Convention (1886), and the Rome Convention (1886)—and more recent ones like TRIPS (1994), the internet treaties (WCT and WPPT) (1996), and the Marrakesh Treaty (2013), among others, which have advocated for and regulated its protection.

 

In addition to covering the protection of intellectual works, such guidelines seek to balance protection with other fundamental human values, such as access to culture, information, and education (Panzolini & Demartini, 2020).

 

In general, copyright is divided into economic and moral rights. The former are tied to the economic and commercial aspects, requiring control over the reproduction, distribution, exhibition, or adaptation of protected works for economic purposes. The latter, however, are personal rights—not financial—of the author over their work. According to Brazilian national legislation, moral rights are inalienable and cannot be transferred. They include:

 

I – the right to claim authorship of the work at any time;

II – the right to have the author's name, pseudonym, or conventional sign indicated or announced as the author when the work is used;

III – the right to keep the work unpublished;

IV – the right to ensure the integrity of the work, opposing any modifications or actions that could harm or affect the author’s reputation or honor;

V – the right to modify the work, before or after it has been used;

VI – the right to withdraw the work from circulation or to suspend any authorized form of use when the circulation or use implies an affront to the author’s reputation and image;

VII – the right to access a rare or unique copy of the work, when it is legitimately in the possession of another party, for the purpose of preserving its memory by photographic or similar means, or audiovisual methods, causing the least inconvenience to its holder, who will be indemnified for any damage or loss caused (Article 24 of Law 9.610/98).

 

Given the above and considering that VESTÍGIOS is a free scientific publication in all its stages, with no costs for authors or readers, we assume that manuscripts published in it, including figures, photos, and translations, may be reproduced and distributed (in whole or in part) by any means, provided that the authors of the original submission are credited and no alterations are made to the text or its visual content. As an open-access journal, VESTÍGIOS allows free download and sharing of published works but emphasizes that proper credit must be given to the author(s), and no changes should be made to their content, ensuring their moral rights.

 

During the submission process, authors license the journal to reproduce the article and its images on its website. However, authors remain the legal owners of the published content, and their names must be mentioned whenever the manuscript is replicated.

 

In the case of collective works, the legal responsibility lies with the individual(s) who submitted the work under their name and/or brand (e.g., Collective "X"), indicating that it is composed of contributions from different authors, whose inputs merge into a single autonomous creation (Item VIII of Article 5 of Law No. 9,610 of February 19, 1998). In cases of reproduction, the authorship of a collective work must be credited to the person(s) who submitted the work; they hold the copyright to the text, whether under a personal name or a brand.

 

According to Oliveira (2012), a collective work differs from co-authorship, which is also written by multiple individuals, as it becomes a "single work." The participation of each author in the production of a collective work must be mentioned at the time of submission (even if the text is signed under a brand) to ensure that their moral rights are upheld.

 

Journal Management

 

The Editorial Board of the journal consists of two editors and four stable sub-editors, selected based on their experience and qualifications to manage the journal’s tasks. Due to the institutional support from the Federal University of Minas Gerais and financial backing from FAPEMIG, the journal is free, high-quality, and open-access.

 

Its management is the responsibility of the editors and sub-editors, who are assisted by a technical team responsible for technical support (maintaining the system's functionality, security, and maintenance) and editorial support (layout, design, language revision—Portuguese, English, and Spanish—normalization, DOI registration, and online publication of volumes).

 

We use the Open Journal Systems (OJS), developed by the Public Knowledge Project (PKP), to better manage the journal's editorial workflow, ensuring efficiency, transparency, free access to published works, and optimizing manuscript submission and reviewer feedback.

 

VESTÍGIOS uses the Digital Object Identifier (DOI), a standard, unique alphanumeric code that creates a permanent access link for the digital identification of published works and volumes.

 

Definition and Plagiarism Detection Policy  

 

VESTÍGIOS does not tolerate plagiarism, which is considered a criminal act, and aligns with the University of Cambridge’s definition: "using ideas, words, data, or other materials produced by someone else without proper acknowledgment," coming from various sources, such as texts, material downloaded from websites, or taken from manuscripts or other media, published and unpublished materials, among others. We emphasize that duplicate and redundant publications, self-plagiarism, or text recycling will also be checked by the editorial team, and if unethical scientific publishing practices are found, manuscripts will be disapproved.  

Manuscripts submitted to VESTÍGIOS must not be under consideration, accepted for publication, or in the process of being printed in another journal, newspaper, book, or similar entity.  

Text recycling, also known as self-plagiarism, occurs when an author reuses portions of text from their previous publications without proper attribution. This differs from redundant or duplicate publication, which refers to large-scale repetition of text or data with at least one author in common. This journal will follow COPE guidelines in evaluating the acceptability of text recycling in submitted manuscripts.  

Any manuscript based on the author's dissertation or thesis must be a reworking of it and written according to this journal's editorial standards. When using the dissertation or thesis, or reusing figures, authors must avoid self-plagiarism by properly citing and referencing any copied or adapted sections. We recommend that the manuscript explicitly state that it is part of a thesis or dissertation.  

All manuscripts received by the Editorial Committee are checked using appropriate plagiarism detection tools, such as Checkforplagiarism.net, to identify and prevent possible plagiarism. Submissions suspected of containing plagiarism, in whole or in part, will be rejected. If plagiarism is discovered after publication, we will follow the guidelines described in this Code of Ethics. We expect our readers, reviewers, and editors to raise any suspicions of plagiarism via email at vestigios@fafich.ufmg.br.  

 

Peer Review Process

  

Submissions are evaluated based on their quality, without any form of discrimination, such as ethnic, racial, or gender bias. The peer review process is conducted through the O.J.S. system, entirely online, with records of all stages. The evaluations are carried out through double-blind peer review. Each submitted manuscript is assigned by the Committee to at least two reviewers who are experts in the area or subject matter addressed and have no conflict of interest with the authors. Both reviewers and authors remain anonymous to each other, and all identifying information (including digital metadata) is removed from the files sent for evaluation. The reports sent are analyzed by the Editorial Team and serve as the basis for the final decision on the approval or rejection of the submissions. It is important to note that the final decision rests with the editors, based on the reviews received.  

The reviews are guided by clearly defined criteria established by the Editorial Committee and detailed in the evaluation form available on the O.J.S. system. The following aspects are considered: (1) originality, contribution, and advancement of the topic; (2) consistency, coherence, and theoretical-methodological articulation; (3) adequacy and sufficiency in data treatment; (4) appropriate graphic support; (5) clarity of the abstract; and (6) relevant and updated bibliography. Based on these criteria, the reviewer determines whether the article requires revision and provides an overall evaluation (Accepted, Mandatory Corrections, Resubmit for Evaluation, Submit to Another Journal, or Rejected), justifying their decision. Optionally, comments may be added directly to the author's manuscript, ensuring that all information that could identify the reviewer, if they choose to remain anonymous, including metadata, is removed before being sent to the author.  

The review process is completed within six months of submission, following the order of receipt, without any form of preference, discrimination, or differentiation. It is essential that when accepting the review request, the reviewer explicitly declares the absence of a conflict of interest to proceed with the manuscript review. Similarly, authors of manuscripts can indicate potential reviewers as well as individuals they would prefer to avoid reviewing, respecting fairness in conflicts of interest. The accuracy of this information is the sole responsibility of the authors and reviewers. However, if false information is found in the declaration, the Editorial Committee is obliged to invalidate and disregard the reviews issued or the limitations on reviewers.  

In case of appeals and disputes related to undeclared conflicts of interest between authors, reviewers, and editors, complaints can be sent to vestigios@fafich.ufmg.br, and the procedures described in the "Allegations of Misconduct, Complaints, and Appeals" section of this Code of Ethics will be followed.  

 

Post-Publication Discussions and Corrections  

The journal also accepts submissions of articles (referred to as "response articles") with the aim of debating works already published. In such cases, authors must submit the manuscript along with a letter to the editors indicating that it is a response, complement, or other type of reflection, critique, or comment on a previously published text. Response articles will go through an analysis process by the editors and, if their relevance is confirmed, will also be subjected to the standard double-blind peer review process adopted by VESTÍGIOS. Response articles will be published in volumes subsequent to the article being debated and will be referenced in a way that links the texts.  

Additionally, after a volume is published, the journal accepts requests for corrections, revisions, and retractions. The process involves sending an email to the journal, addressed to the editors, explaining the issue. The procedures are the same as those specified in the "Allegations of Misconduct, Complaints, and Appeals" section. The Editorial Committee will review the submitted request.

 

Bibliographic References

Beltrão, J. F.; Silva, T. C.; Silva, N. L. L. Análise das políticas de plágio na publicação científica: o caso de um segmento de revistas da área de Ciências Humanas na América Latina. TransInformação, Campinas, v. 34: e220018, 2022. https://doi.org/10.1590/2318-0889202234e220018    

Damasio, E. Práticas de má conduta na comunicação científica e o fluxo editorial: um estudo com editores de revistas científicas SciELO.  Tese (doutorado), Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, Escola de Comunicação, Programa de Pós-Graduação em Ciência da Informação, 2017. https://ridi.ibict.br/bitstream/123456789/946/6/Damasio_Tese_IBICT_2017.pdf   

Goldim, J. R. Conflitos de interesse e suas repercussões na Ciência. Editorial. Revista Brasileira de Psiquiatria, 28(1), 2006. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1516-44462006000100002  

Monteiro, R.; Jatene, F. B.; Goldenberg, S.; Población, D. A.; Pellizzon, R. de F. Critérios de autoria em trabalhos científicos: um assunto polêmico e delicado. Artigo Especial.Braz. J. Cardiovasc. Surg. 19 (4), 2004. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0102-76382004000400002  

Morris, S; Barnas, E.; LaFrenier, D., Reich, M. The Handbook of Journal Publishing. Cambridge University Press, 2013. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139107860   

Oliveira, Jane Resina Fernandes. Considerações sobre a proteção dos direitos autorais nas obras multimídia, coletiva e sob encomenda. Migalhas, 2012. https://www.migalhas.com.br/depeso/166368/consideracoes-sobre-a-protecao-dos-direitos-autorais-nas-obras-multimidia--coletiva-e-sob-encomenda  

Panzolini, Carolina; Demartini, Silvana.  Manual de direitos autorais. Brasília: TCU, Secretaria-Geral de Administração, 2020.

Rego, S.; Palácios, M. Conflitos de Interesses e a Produção Científica. Editorial. Rev. bras. educ. med. 32 (2), 2008. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0100-55022008000300001