Crossmark policy page

RPCFO CrossMark Policy: https://doi.org/10.9789/retratacao: https://doi.org/10.9789/retratacao

The application of the CrossMark icon is a commitment Research Journal Care is Fundamental Online - RPCFO to maintain published content and alert readers to changes, if and when they occur. RPCFO CrossMark Policy: https://doi.org/10.9789/retratacao The application of the CrossMark icon is a commitment Research Journal Care is Fundamental Online - RPCFO to maintain published content and alert readers to changes, if and when they occur.

RPCFO Cross Reference Policy: https://doi.org/10.9789/retratacao
The application of the CrossMark icon is a commitment Research Journal Care is Fundamental Online - RPCFO to maintain published content and alert readers to changes, if and when they occur.

What is Crossmark?
CrossMark is an initiative of several publishers of CrossRef, provides a standard way for readers to locate the authoritative version of a document.

The Research Journal Care is Fundamental Online - RPCFO recognizes the importance of the integrity and completeness of the scholarly record for researchers and librarians and attaches the utmost importance to maintaining confidence in the authority of its electronic archive. Clicking on the CrossMark icon will inform the reader of the current status of a document and may also provide additional information about the document. Publication of any material on RPCFO indicates that all of its authors have agreed to its content and have ensured that RPCFO policies have been fully complied with.

Failure to comply with these policies may mean that an article fails the pre-publication checks and
cannot be published.
1. Originality
All papers submitted to RPCFO must be original; the work, or a large part of it, must not have been previously published or be currently under consideration or review elsewhere, except, for repositories of preprints. If there is significant overlap with another paper, this should be cited in the paper and mentioned in the submission. RPCFO uses Crossref's similarity checker (iThenticate) to check articles for plagiarism; if clear plagiarism (including self-plagiarism) is identified, the article will be rejected.
RPCFO strongly discourages excessive or inappropriate self-citation. Articles previously published on a preprint server, such as SciELO Preprints, ArXiv, bioRxiv, AgriXiv or PeerJ PrePrints, can be submitted for publication in RPCFO, provided they meet our standards.
Articles submitted with content that violates copyright may be rejected if the problematic sections cannot be removed.
Authors who wish to reproduce a figure or table from a previous copyrighted publication are responsible for obtaining permission from the copyright holders and making clear reference to the original source. Figures that have been previously published under a creative commons license may be reused under the condition of the specific license that applies to those figures.
2. Publication and authorship criteria
The RPCFO is set up to facilitate rapid sharing of active scientists, clinical researchers and researchers from all fields, and to facilitate constructive academic discussion. The RPCFO does not have Editors who make an editorial judgment on whether the results and data presented in a given article are 'valid'; this is ultimately the responsibility of the authors and evaluated by expert reviewers.
However, articles in RPCFO must represent scholarly work suitable for formal peer review; therefore, only authors with sufficient training as researchers in the areas covered by RPCFO may publish.
For disciplines outside the sciences, where PhDs are not required, a Master's degree or equivalent may be sufficient; however, the author should have an appointment at a recognized institution and be able to demonstrate his or her activities in the research community. Undergraduates may be authors, provided that they are supervised by masters and/or PhDs who are co-authors of the paper.
Scientists, clinical researchers and academics who wish to submit their research, but who do not meet our standard authorship criteria, will need to be endorsed by an experienced researcher who meets our authorship criteria. The author(s) should send the name and details of their nominated endorser to the editorial office. Any appointed endorser should confirm the experience of the author(s) as well as the scientific standard of the submission. A statement to explain this, along with the name and affiliation of the endorser will also be included in the published article.
Publication of review articles
RPCFO accepts review articles as long as the research topics have direct relevance to the researchers in the form of Review articles. Submissions of this type should represent a useful addition to the scientific literature and should be presented in a format suitable for peer review. While researchers who meet the criteria described above have the right to publish any article that presents new research and data, the decision as to whether a submitted review is suitable for publication and subsequent expert peer review ultimately rests with the Editor to decide for publication.
Editorials are published by invitation only.
All authors should have made a clear contribution to the published article. As a guide, authors should consult the authorship criteria developed by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE). Each author's contribution should be detailed by selecting the CRediT roles on the paper
submission form. Anyone who has contributed but does not meet the criteria for authorship (e.g. purely
technical or written assistance) should be listed in the 'Acknowledgements' section.
The involvement of any professional assistance from scientific writers or physicians should be declared. Authors must obtain permission to include their name and affiliation, among all those mentioned in the Acknowledgments section, without prejudice to the requirement to present the Research Protocol approved by a Research Ethics Committee.
Inclusion or exclusion of authors will not be allowed after ACCEPT or even after the PUBLICATION. Changes in authorship, ONLY for name corrections. In this case, after publication, a new version of the paper may be published with an explanation included in the 'Amendments' section at the top of the new version. Any changes in authorship must be confirmed by all authors. If the editorial team is unable to contact an author, the corresponding author is responsible for facilitating communication. In accordance with COPE guidelines, the editorial team cannot take responsibility for resolving any disputes about authorship; any disagreements between authors should be resolved by the authors'
institution(s).
3. Competing interests (conflict of interest)
Authors should include a statement of 'competing interests'. A competing interest will not prevent publication, but provides full transparency to reviewers and readers. If there are no competing interests to declare, the following standard statement is added: 'No competing interests have been disclosed'. A competing interest can be of a non-financial or financial nature. Examples of competing interests include (but are not limited to):
1- individuals who receive funding, salary, or other forms of payment from an organization or who hold stock or shares in a company who may benefit (or lose) financially from the publication of the findings;
2- individuals or their funding organization or employer holding (or applying for) related patents;
3- official affiliations and associations with interest groups related to the content of the publication;
4- competing political, religious or ideological interests.
Authors from pharmaceutical companies or other commercial organizations that sponsor clinical trials should declare these as competing interests in the submission. Each author's relationship to that organization should be explained in the "Competing interests/conflicts of interest" section. Publications in RPCFO should not contain content that advertises commercial products.
The International Society for Medical Publishing Professionals provides best practice guidelines, which aim to ensure that "clinical trials sponsored by pharmaceutical companies are published in a responsible and ethical manner."
Reviewers are also required to declare any competing interests in their reports, as are readers who contribute comments to the site.
If an undisclosed competing interest is brought to the attention of the editorial office after publication, the RPCFO will follow COPE guidelines.
4. Ethical policies
RPCFO follows COPE guidelines related to ethical oversight.
4.1 Research involving human beings
Ethical approval
All studies involving human subjects (individuals, data, or human material) must have been conducted in accordance with the principles expressed in the Declaration of Helsinki. Approval must have been obtained for all protocols from the authors' institutional ethics committee or other relevant ethics committee (Institutional Review Board, IRB) to ensure that they meet national and international guidelines. Details of this approval should be provided when submitting an article, including the institution, the name of the review board, and the permission number(s).
Studies on humans categorized by race/ethnicity, age, disease/disability, religion, sex/gender, sexual orientation, or other socially constructed groupings should include a justification for the choice of definitions and categories, including whether human categorization rules are required by relevant funding agencies. Appropriate nonstigmatizing language should be used when describing different groups.
Ethical approval must be obtained before the research is conducted; retrospective approval usually cannot be obtained and it may not be possible to publish the study.
Patient privacy and informed consent for publication
As stated in the Recommendations of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors: "Patients have a right to privacy that should not be violated without informed consent. Identifying information should not be published in written descriptions, photographs, and pedigrees unless it is essential for scientific purposes and the patient (or parent or guardian) gives written informed consent for publication. Informed consent for this purpose requires the patient to show the manuscript to be published. When informed consent is obtained, it must be indicated in the published article."
Consent to participate: For all studies involving human participants, including personal genomic studies, case reports, clinical trials, questionnaires, observations, etc., it was necessary to obtain written informed consent to participate in the research, and this should be stated in the article in a section titled 'Consent'. You can use our consent form or your own institution's form, whichever you prefer. If only verbal consent was obtained (rather than written), the reasons need to be explained, confirmation of IRB approval that oral consent was adequate should be provided, and a statement of how it was documented included in the Consent section.
Consent for publication of identifiable data: for any article that includes information that could potentially identify an individual, make sure you have obtained informed written consent from all patients or healthy participants (or their legal guardians for minors or close relatives) who have died) confirming that the results and all accompanying images can be published. This includes large clinical datasets with direct or indirect identifiers, specific details about individuals, images, and so on.
If your article contains identifiable images of individuals, include a statement confirming that you have permission to publish these images. If your article contains clinical images or identifiable data, you should include an explicit consent statement under a separate heading in the 'Consent' section (we suggest: "We confirm that we have obtained permission to use [images / data] from the participants / patients / subjects included in this submission"). Please also indicate the conditions under which permission has been obtained.
Alternatively, if consent is not required for publication (for example, the data has been anonymized), this should be clearly stated and a note should be added confirming that these changes have not distorted the scientific meaning.
Signed consent forms should be made available to the RPCFO editorial office if requested.
4.2 Research involving animals
Studies involving animals must have been conducted in accordance with the 'Animal Research: Reporting of Live Experiments' (ARRIVE) guidelines, developed by the NC3Rs to improve reporting standards by ensuring that data from animal experiments can be fully examined and used. Relevant information outlined in these guidelines should be included in the appropriate section of the article.
Experiments involving regulated vertebrates or invertebrates must be performed within the ethical guidelines provided by the authors' institution and by national or international regulations. Where applicable, a statement of ethical permission granted or animal licenses should be included. If animals were used, but ethical approval was not required, a clear statement should be included stating why such approval was unnecessary.
In all cases, a statement must be made to confirm that every effort has been made to improve the suffering of the animals and details of how this was achieved.
Authors must comply with the Convention on Biological Diversity and the Convention on Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora.
4.3 Research involving plants
Plant studies should be conducted within the guidelines provided by the authors' institution and by national or international regulations. Where applicable, a statement of permits granted or licenses should be included. Authors must comply with the Convention on Biological Diversity and the Convention on Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora.
5. Improper image manipulation
Photographic images published on RPCFO must accurately reflect the original image. As such, we require that all images, whether submitted as pictures or submitted as data, are not manipulated so that readers are not misled about what the images indicate. We understand that it is standard practice to use software to modify images to make them clearer and easier to interpret. However, any modifications made to the images should be minor and should be done uniformly throughout the image.
Modifications that change the scientific meaning of the image, either in specific regions or in the entire image, are not allowed. Where parts of the same gel are joined, this should be indicated in the figures with a dividing line, making it clear where the image has been joined. Areas of different gels should not be merged. Where loading controls are present, they should always be included in the image; if merged, any modifications to the loading control and the area of interest should be identical.
Authors should include details of all modifications made to images published as figures or uploaded as data in the Methods section of a paper, including the name of the software (with version number) used to make these modifications.
Examples of inappropriate image manipulation are well described in an article in the Journal of Cell Biology (Rossner & Yamada, 2004), published by Rockefeller University Press.
We also require that the original, uncropped, unannotated, and unprocessed versions of all gel and micrograph images, which we consider underlying data, be deposited in an approved online repository (see our Data Guidelines for more details on how to deposit your data).
6. Registration of trials and systematic reviews
6.1 Test registration
RPCFO uses the WHO definition of a clinical trial to decide what constitutes a clinical trial:
"A clinical trial is any research study that prospectively assigns participants or groups of human beings to one or more health-related interventions to evaluate the effects on health outcomes. Interventions include (but are not restricted to) drugs, cells and other biological products, surgical procedures, radiological procedures, devices, behavioral treatments, changes in the process of care, preventive care, etc. ".
Trials should be registered prospectively and the registration number and registration date should be included in the article.
More information can be found in the ICMJE FAQ on trial registration, and the WHO provides a list of approved registrations.
While we expect trials to be registered before patient recruitment begins, several initiatives (such as the AllTrials campaign) have recognized that retrospective registration of trials will encourage publication of positive and negative results, and trials conducted prior to registration were possible. According to these initiatives, the RPCFO will consider retrospectively registered trials, provided that an explanation for the delay in registration is provided in the article. Again, the trial registration number and date of registration should be included in the Methods section of the article.
6.2 Registration of systematic reviews
Authors are encouraged to register their systematic reviews in PROSPERO or another registry for systematic reviews. The registration number should be included in the article.
7. Communication standards
For articles in the life sciences, there are reporting guideline standards designed to help authors ensure that they provide a comprehensive description of their research, making it easier for others to evaluate and reproduce the work; for more details and a comprehensive overview, see the FAIRSharing initiative.
Comprehensive lists of available reporting guidelines can be found on the EQUATOR network website for health research.
Specifically, articles in RPCFO that report on clinical trials should follow the CONSORT reporting guidelines.
Authors are requested to include a copy of the original study protocol and a complete CONSORTcomplete checklist and flow chart as supporting files, which will be published
along with the article.
The trial registration number and the date of registration should be included in the Methods section. Any deviation from the original trial protocol should be explained in the article.
Articles reporting on systematic reviews should follow PRISMA guidelines, and authors should also include a complete PRISMA checklist and flowchart as supporting files.
Study protocols for systematic reviews should follow PRISMA-P guidelines. We ask authors to include a complete PRISMA-P checklist.
8. Data availability
All articles in RPCFO that report original results should include the source data underlying the results, along with details of any software used to process the results. It is essential that others can see the source data in order to be able to replicate the study and analyze the data, as well as, in some circumstances, reuse it. Failure to provide the source data for publication without good justification will likely result in the article being rejected. For detailed information on the type of data authors need to include when publishing an article in RPCFO, where the data can be stored, and how it should be presented, please see our data guidelines.
We recognize that there may be cases where open sharing of data may not be feasible (due to ethical or security considerations or data protection issues). If you feel this applies to your article, please let the editorial team know at the submission stage, as we have policies in place to allow articles to publish associated data while maintaining the appropriate level of security.
Exceptions can be made for:
Ethical and security considerations - If access to data is restricted for ethical or security reasons, the manuscript must include:1- a description of the restrictions on the data; and all information necessary for a reader or reviewer to request access to the data and the conditions under which access will be granted.
Data Protection Issues
Where human data cannot be effectively de-identified, data should not be shared to protect patient / participant privacy unless individuals have given explicit written consent that their identifiable data can be made publicly available.
In cases where data cannot be made available, the manuscript should include: 1- an explanation of the data protection concern; 2- any intermediate data that can be deidentified without compromising anonymity; 3- what the Institutional Review Board (IRB) or equivalent has said about data sharing; and, 4- where applicable, all necessary information required for a reader or reviewer to request access to the data and the conditions under which access will be granted. Big Data
It is not always possible to share large data sets. In such cases, authors should include a description of the data, including file types and sizes, when submitting their manuscript.
The editorial team can advise on hosting.
Where the data are too large to be possible to host through a recommended repository, the manuscript should include: 1- any intermediate data that can be easily shared; and all the necessary information required for a reader or reviewer to access the data along with a description of that process.
Data under license by third parties
In cases where data was obtained from a third party and restrictions apply to the availability of the data, the manuscript should include:
1- all the information necessary for a reader or reviewer to access the data by the same means as the authors;
2- any intermediate data that can be legally shared; and
3- publicly available data that is representative of the analyzed data set and can be used to apply the methodology described in the manuscript.
In cases where data from human studies were obtained from government organizations (e.g., the Ministry of Health) and strict restrictions on data availability apply, authors should include a clear explanation of the restrictions and all information necessary for a reader or reviewer to request access from the data owners. This option will be discussed with authors on a case-by-case basis and can only be considered if there are no discernible competing interests, especially if they are commercial in nature.
9. Licenses
Articles in RPCFO are generally published under a CC BY license, which permits unrestricted use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided that the original work is properly cited and the copyright in the article is left with the current copyright holder (usually the author or their institution). Additional exemptions are used for some government employees, as appropriate.
Data associated with RPCFO articles are made available, where possible, under the terms of a Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication(CC0 license).
This facilitates and encourages reuse and helps avoid the problems of attribution stacking when combining multiple datasets, each authored by multiple authors using several different licenses.
Peer review reports published with a particular article are also available under the CC BY license.
10. Permanence of the content
All articles published in RPCFO receive a DOI and are permanently published. This applies regardless of the outcome of the peer review that follows publication.
All content, including articles that have not yet passed peer review, is archived permanently in Portico. All versions of all articles that have passed peer review will be archived in Web of Science and elsewhere.
Authors can revise, change, and update their articles by publishing new versions, which are added to the article history; however, individual versions, once published, cannot be changed or removed and are permanently available on the RPCFO website. The RPCFO participates in the CrossMark scheme, a multi-publisher initiative that has developed a standard way for readers to locate the current version of an article. By applying CrossMark policies, RPCFO is committed to maintaining the content it publishes and to alerting readers of changes if and when they occur.
Clicking on the CrossMark logo (at the top of each RPCFO article) provides the current status of an article and directs you to the most recently published version; it can also provide additional information, such as new peer review reports.
To maintain the integrity and completeness of the scholarly record, the following policies will apply when published content needs to be amended; these policies take into account current best practices in the scholarly publishing and library communities:
10.1 Correcting an Article
In traditional journals, where articles are peer-reviewed before publication, corrections (or Erratas) are published to alert readers to errors in the article that have become apparent after the final article is published.
On the other hand, articles in RPCFO go through peer review publication and the publication is not 'final' as new versions can be added at any time. Potential errors that come to light during the peer review process can be highlighted in the published peer review reports, which are part of the article. Authors can publish revised versions and any errors that become apparent during peer review or later can be corrected by publishing new versions. Corrections and changes from the previous version are always summarized in the 'Amendments' section at the beginning of a new version.
10.2 Shrinkage
A retraction is a public statement made about a previous statement that withdraws, cancels, refutes or reverses the original statement or ceases and desist from publishing the original statement. A retraction can be initiated by the editors of a journal or by the author(s) of the papers (or their institution). The editors will consult the reviewers for their comments. The paper will be retracted in cases such as multiple submissions, plagiarism, or fraudulent use of data. A change that alters the main point of the original statement is generally referred to as a retraction, while a change that leaves the main point of a statement intact is generally referred to simply as a correction. Depending on the
circumstances, a retraction or correction is the appropriate remedy. RPCFO's current retraction policy is largely based on guidelines and standards developed by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Please see https://publicationethics.org/files/retraction%20guidelines.pdf .

Withdrawal Policy
Few authors request withdrawal of the manuscript from the publication process after submission or after publication. In some cases, the withdrawal request is made when the manuscript is only a few days away from publication in the journal. This can cause a waste of time for editors, reviewers, and the editorial staff.
To withdraw an article, a formal request must be made by the corresponding author in the specified template. Withdrawn means that the article is archived in our database and is no longer used. Articles that have not yet been published but represent earlier versions, are considered accidental duplicates of other published articles, or are determined to violate our journal publication ethics guidelines, in the view of the editors, may be "Withdrawn" from RPCFO. If an article is withdrawn, a penalty will apply.
That is a withdrawal within 10 days of submission, the author can withdraw the manuscript without paying any withdrawal fee, however, if authors withdraw manuscripts at any time after review and acceptance, a withdrawal fee will have to be paid.
For Brazil R$ 500.00
For other countries $ 120 (American dollars)
Items can be removed for a variety of reasons, including:
1- honest errors reported by the authors (e.g. errors due to mixing samples or using a scientific tool or equipment that is later found to be defective);
2- research misconduct (data fabrication);
3- duplicate or overlapping publication;
4- fraudulent use of data;
5- clear plagiarism;
6- unethical research.
For any article withdrawn, the reason for the withdrawal and who is instigating the withdrawal will be clearly stated in the Retraction notice.
The withdrawal notice will be linked to the withdrawn article (which usually remains on the site) and the article will be clearly marked as withdrawn (including the PDF).
An article is usually withdrawn only at the request of the authors or by the editor in response to an institutional investigation. It is important to note, in the context of the RPCFO publishing model, that - as in traditional journals - a retracted article is not 'unpublished' or 'withdrawn' to be published elsewhere.
The reasons for the retraction are usually so severe that the entire study, or much of it, is
not suitable for inclusion in the scientific literature anywhere. The content of a removed article will only be removed when legal limitations are imposed on the publisher, copyright holder or author(s), for example if the article is clearly defamatory or violates the legal rights of a third party, or if the article is the subject of a court order. In such cases, the bibliographic information of the article will be kept on the site, along with information about the circumstances that led to the removal of the content.
Under rare circumstances, for example if false or inaccurate data have been published and, if adopted, would pose a serious health risk, the original incorrect versions could be removed and a corrected version published. The reason for this partial removal would be clearly stated in the latest version.
10.3 Editorial Note
If there is a potential, unresolved problem with an article, it may be appropriate to alert readers with an Editorial Note. Such an Editorial Note may be added, for example, if RPCFO receives information that there has been research or publication misconduct or if there is a serious dispute between authors or between authors and third parties. The Editorial Note will generally be published while other investigations take place and until a more permanent solution is found (e.g., publication of a 'corrected' revised version or a Retraction).
10.4 Expression of concern
In rare cases, the RPCFO may decide to publish an Expression of Concern, which is linked to the problematic article, if there are serious concerns about an article, but no conclusive evidence can be obtained that unequivocally justifies a Withholding. This may include:
1- if there is inconclusive evidence of research or publication misconduct;
2- there is evidence that there are problems with the article, but the authors' institution will not investigate the case;
3- an investigation into alleged misconduct was not impartial or conclusive.
11. Allegations of misconduct
RPCFO follows the recommendations of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and provides a framework for ethical publishing in accordance with COPE's codes of conduct for publishers.
If a case of suspected research or publication misconduct is brought to our attention, we will follow the COPE guidelines. This may involve contacting the authors' research institution, an ethics committee, or other third parties.
Research misconduct includes fabrication or falsification of data or instances where research involving animals or humans was not conducted within an appropriate ethical framework . Publication misconduct includes duplicate publication of articles or clear plagiarism. Honest mistakes or differences of opinion are not considered "misconduct".
If you suspect misconduct in an article published in RPCFO, please contact the editorial office (rev.fundamental@gmail.com ).
12. Appeals and complaints
RPCFO follows COPE guidelines regarding complaints and appeals. If you wish to appeal an editorial decision or file a complaint, please contact the editorial office (rev.fundamental@gmail.com ). If your problem cannot be resolved by the editorial office, the Scientific Editor should be contacted.
13. The peer review model
All articles undergo a formal peer review by invited experts who meet our criteria for reviewers; these criteria aim to ensure that reviewers have sufficient knowledge and qualifications to judge the content of the article and that they have no conflicts of interest.
Revisions and updates are published as new versions, with clear explanations (in the "Amendments" section) of the changes made by the authors. Generally, an article receives 2 or 3 peer review reports. Reviewers choose an approval status, which helps determine whether the article has passed peer review and is indexed in bibliographic databases such as Web of Science.
13.1 Stopping peer review
Peer review may be discontinued for some articles that have not received enough peer review reports after a long period of time. As a general rule, authors may choose to discontinue peer review if the article has not received any reports after 9 months or if only 1 report has been received after 10 months. In some cases, where authors do not actively perform peer review, the RPCFO team may add an explanation to the article to alert readers that peer review of the article is not active.
Peer review of such articles may be reactivated at a later date, upon request by the authors, provided that the article has not been peer reviewed and published elsewhere in the meantime.