About the Journal

BJRS Editorial Policies and Practices

Last update: 2024-01-10

1. Editorial Policy
2. Preprint Policy
3. Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice Statement
4. Author’s Guidelines
5. Reviewer’s Guidelines

1. Editorial Policy [ ↑ ]

Brazilian Journal of Radiation Science (BJRS), ISSN 2319-0612, is a Platinum Open Access journal sponsored, since 2013, by the Brazilian Radiation Protection Society – (Sociedade Brasileira de Proteção Radiológica - SBPR), a scientific society affiliated to the Brazilian Association of Scientific Editors (ABEC). It publishes rigorously peer-reviewed scholarly research.

Platinum (Diamond) Open Access: this term refers to open access journals that don't charge any author fees (APC - Article Processing Charges). They are usually financed by a university or research organization.

The editor in chief, advised by the BJRS Editorial Board, possesses delegated responsibility for overall policy matters concerning the Journal.

1.1. Focus and Scope [ ↑ ]

One way to consolidate a radiation protection safety culture is to establish adequate and appropriate communication processes among all the actors involved in radiation applications.

In this context, the BJRS, as a journal published by the Brazilian Radiation Protection Society, a society affiliated to the INTERNATIONAL RADIATION PROTECTION ASSOCIATION - IRPA, aims to disseminate scientific articles on the major disciplines on radiation sciences.

Covering the Biological, Health, Engineering, Exact and Earth areas and even Law (Nuclear Law), the following topics covered by the journal editorial line stand out:

Biological and Health Effects of Radiation,
Radiation Protection of Patients, Workers, and Members of the Public,
Radiation Measurements and Dosimetry,
International Recommendations and Regulations,
Protection of the Environment,
Education and Training,
Technology and Development,
Communication with Society,
Stakeholder Engagement and Involvement,
Safety Culture and Risk Perception,
Emergency Preparedness and Response,
Radioactive Waste Management,
Safe Transport of Radioactive Materials,
Nuclear Safety, Safeguards and Security of Radioactive Material and
Nuclear Legislation

The focus is: first, to serve researchers through the immediate publication of important advances in all fields of radiation sciences, as well as to promote a forum for discussion and dissemination of science-related issues.

Second, ensure that the results of scientific work are quickly disseminated to the general public, in order to express their importance for knowledge, culture and everyday life, in the direction of what the movement in favor of Open Science advocates.

Any work that meets the aforementioned scope and that has not been published or accepted for publication elsewhere will be considered for publication in the Brazilian Journal of Radiation Sciences.

1.1.1. Target audience

Community of potential readers, especially in Portuguese-speaking countries:

Researchers in the applications of Ionizing and Non-Ionizing Radiation area, in medicine, industry, agriculture and scientific research, and in the nuclear area.
Teachers and students with interest in the nuclear area and in the applications of radiation, covering the thematic areas: a) level 1 (large area of CAPES): Multidisciplinary; Exact and Earth Sciences; Biological Sciences; Engineering and b) level 2 (basic area of CAPES assessment): Interdisciplinary; Physical; Biological Sciences (Biophysics); Engineering II.
Nuclear Doctors, Radiotherapists, Radiologists and Medical and Health Physicists;
Radiation Protection Supervisors and Technicians;
Technicians and Technologists in Medical and Industrial Radiology;
Technicians, Professionals and Students in the areas of application of ionizing radiation and nuclear techniques in industry, medicine, agriculture, and scientific research;
Professionals in the areas of oil and gas extraction, mining facilities and conventional ores processing with associated uranium and thorium and in the nuclear industry (INB, ELETRONUCLEAR, NUCLEP) and power generation;
Suppliers of equipment and services related to ionizing and non-ionizing radiation;
Users of radioactive sources and equipment generating ionizing and non-ionizing radiation;
Employees of regulatory and supervisory bodies in Brazil (ANSN, CNEN, ANVISA, IBAMA, State and Municipal Secretariats, etc.), Portugal and other Portuguese speaking countries;
Staff of the professional regulatory bodies (CONTER, CBR, etc.);
Technicians and specialists in Health Surveillance;
Technicians who work in ports and airports involved in the protection and security of the transport of Class 7 dangerous goods;
Technicians and work engineers in the areas of occupational safety and occupational medicine, involved with radiation protection;
Occupational Physicians and Nurses;
Specialists from FUNDACENTRO;
Directors and managers of companies involved with the topic;
Geologists and technicians in the areas of natural radioactivity, mining and processing;
Specialists in Environmental and Nuclear Law.

1.2. Mission [ ↑ ]

Contribute to the dissemination of a culture of radiological safety and protection, establishing adequate and appropriate communication processes between all actors involved in radiation applications, through the dissemination of scientific articles in the main disciplines of radiation sciences.

1.3. Diversity Statement [ ↑ ]

BJRS is committed to scholarship that is respectful of diversity and inclusion. Diversity in our journal includes considering and publishing scholarship from scholars with different institutional affiliations, different nationalities, and at different stages of their professional careers; In particular, we encourage submissions from those that are underrepresented within academia, due to race, ethnicity, gender identity, disability, or other protected characteristics, thereby ensuring the promotion of diversity, equity, inclusion and accessibility (DEIA principles). We encourage authors to engage with and cite sources historically excluded from academia and engage with the work of scholars based in the countries about which they are writing. We are committed to eliminating the influence of bias in our editorial and review processes and continually work toward identifying and implementing best practices for scientific publishing.

1.4. Frequency [ ↑ ]

Starting on 2023, BJRS operates under a continuous publication model, by publishing manuscripts submitted to the journal and manuscripts previously deposited in the EmeRI preprint repository. Papers are posted online as soon as the production process is completed.

BJRS publishes 4 regular issues per year, under continuous publication.

1.5. Open Science [ ↑ ]

BJRS supports the concept of open science, which seeks to open up the entire research and publication process even further, including open data, open protocols, open code and transparent peer review. However, the opening of the data is conditioned to the authorization of the authors and reviewers involved in a submission.
For authors: check out the Open Science Compliance Form.

1.6. Diamond Open Access [ ↑ ]

BJRS is a Diamond Open Access Journal which means that all content is freely available without charge to the user or his/her institution. Users are allowed to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of the articles, or use them for any other lawful purpose, without asking prior permission from the publisher or the author. This is in accordance with the BOAI definition of open access. Diamond OA (or Platinum OA) is a publishing model where the entire publishing process is funded by non-profit organizations, research institutions, or government agencies; there are no charging fees to authors or readers.

1.7. Creative commons license [ ↑ ]

The BJRS articles are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, CC By, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party materials in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

1.8. Copyright assignment [ ↑ ]

Copyright law gives creators certain kinds of control over their creative work. If people want to use copyrighted work, they often have to ask for permission from the creator. BJRS requires that the authors transfer – or “assign” – their copyright to the journal. Assigning the copyright enables us to effectively manage, publish and make author work available to the academic community and beyond.
But, as a Diamond Open Access journal, BJRS applies the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY) license to articles we publish. Creative Commons works within copyright law. It allows creators to grant permission to everyone in the world to use their work. If you submit your paper for publication by BJRS, you agree to have the CC BY license applied to your work. BJRS requires that you, as the author, agree that anyone can reuse your article content in whole or part for any purpose, for free, even for commercial purposes. These permitted uses include but are not limited to self-archiving by authors of submitted, accepted and published versions of their papers in institutional repositories. Anyone may copy, redistribute, reuse, or modify the content as long as the author and original source are properly cited. This facilitates freedom in reuse and also ensures that BJRS content can be mined without barriers for the needs of research.
If your manuscript contains content such as photos, images, clipart, tables, audio files, videos, proprietary protocols, code, etc., that you or your co-authors do not own or did not create, we will require you to provide us with proof that either:
a. the material is in the public domain or available under an open access license compatible with CC BY 4.0, or
b. the owner of that content has given you written permission to use and publish the content under an open access CC BY 4.0 license.

1.9. Publication charges [ ↑ ]

BJRS does not charges for submission and offers immediate free access to its content.

1.10. Archiving [ ↑ ]

BJRS uses the LOCKSS and the CLOCKSS systems to create a file system distributed among participating libraries and allows them to create permanent archives of the journal for preservation and restoration (PKP PN).

1.11. Self Archiving Policy [ ↑ ]

BJRS allows authors to deposit publisher’s version (post-print) of their article in an institutional repository.

1.12. Indexing [ ↑ ]

1.13. Privacy Statement [ ↑ ]

Your privacy is important to BJRS. This privacy statement provides information about the personal information that BJRS collects, and the ways in which we use that personal information.

BJRS may collect and use personal information that is necessary for the processing and publication of manuscripts submitted to us. This information may include names, affiliation and contact details; including postal address, emails, phone numbers and fax numbers.

1.13.1. Using personal information

Any personal information received by BJRS will only be used to: process and publish your manuscript; administer this website; personalize the website for you; enable your access to and use of the website services; send to you communication about your manuscript; send to you statements and invoices; send you marketing communications.

Where BJRS discloses your personal information to its agents or sub-contractors for these purposes, the agent or sub-contractor in question will be obligated to use that personal information in accordance with the terms of this privacy statement.

In addition to the disclosures reasonably necessary for the purposes identified elsewhere above, BJRS may disclose your personal information to the extent that it is required to do so by law, in connection with any legal proceedings or prospective legal proceedings, and in order to establish, exercise or defend its legal rights.

1.13.2. Securing your data

BJRS will take reasonable technical and organisational precautions to prevent the loss, misuse or alteration of your personal information.

In addition, personal information that you submit for publication on the website will be published on the internet and may be available around the world. You agree to such cross-border transfers of personal information.

BJRS may update this privacy policy by posting a new version on this website. You should check this page occasionally to ensure you are familiar with any changes. This website contains links to other websites.

BJRS is not responsible for the privacy policies or practices of any third party.

If you have any questions about this privacy policy or BJRS' treatment of your personal information, please send an email to bjrs@bjrs.org.br.

1.14. ISSN [ ↑ ]

e-ISSN: 2319-0612.

1.15. Revenue sources [ ↑ ]

The revenue sources are income from scientific events promoted by SBPR, as a scientific society that finances the scientific journal, and resources from any support projects approved in public calls promoted by official bodies supporting Science and Technology.

BJRS does not charges for submission and offers immediate free access to its content.

2. Preprint Policy [ ↑ ]

A preprint is a paper that is made available publicly via a community preprint server prior to (or simultaneous with) submission to a journal. Preprint servers, i.e., servers that allow for the posting of papers prior to submission for publication, are becoming more common across a range of disciplines.

BJRS believes journals should allow for the submission of manuscripts which have already been made available on such a server. Allowing submission does not, of course, guarantee that an article will be sent out for review; it simply reflects a belief that availability on a preprint server should not be a disqualifier for submission.

2.2. BJRS's Preprints Policy statement [ ↑ ]

BJRS will consider for review articles previously available as preprints. Authors are requested to update any pre-publication versions with a link to the final published article. Authors may also post the final published version of the article immediately after publication.

Authors who have published a work on the EmeRI preprint server must complete the Open Science Compliance Form and submit it through step 2 of the submission form.

2.3. Preprint server [ ↑ ]

BRJS adopts EmeRI preprint repository for manuscript preprint submissions.

2.4. Licensing implications [ ↑ ]

Authors should not assign copyright during the preprint process; authors should retain copyright in their work when posting to a preprint server.

Preferably, authors should only grant “no re-use” licenses to their preprints. However, BJRS will consider for publication submissions that have previously been assigned CC-BY (-NC/-NC-ND) as preprints.

2.5. Implications for citation practices [ ↑ ]

BJRS encourages researchers and academics who reference preprints (like other peer reviewed and non-peer reviewed sources) to continue to cite these sources accurately.

Researchers can search preprint servers that are easily found using scholarly search engines or that are recognized and well-established.

If a preprint is assigned a DOI, BJRS will assign a new DOI to the accepted article and can optionally link to the preprint. Note that the preprint publisher must link to the published article, per CrossRef: “[Posted content] consists of preprints, eprints, working papers, reports, dissertations, and many other types of content that has been posted but not formally published… Once a journal article (or book, conference paper, etc.) has been published from the posted content and a DOI has been assigned, the posted content publisher will update their metadata to associate the posted content with the DOI of the accepted manuscript (AM) or version of record (VOR).”

More details are available here.

3. Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice Statement [ ↑ ]

The Brazilian Journal of Radiation Sciences (BJRS) and its Publisher, Brazilian Radiation Protection Society (SBPR) - are responsible for the conduct of their editors, for safeguarding the research record, and for ensuring the reliability of everything we publish.

The Journal:

1. follows the New Core Practices of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). COPE’s 10 Core Practice Areas are as follows:

Post-publication discussions

2. publishes the contact details of their editor-in-chief who act as the point of contact for questions relating to research and publication integrity;

3. informs institutions if they suspect misconduct by their researchers, and provide evidence to support these concerns;

4. cooperates with investigations and respond to institutions’ questions about misconduct allegations;

5. is prepared to issue retractions or corrections (according to the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) guidelines on retractions) when provided with findings of misconduct arising from investigations;

6. has policies for responding to institutions and other organizations that investigate cases of research misconduct.

In addition, it is expected of authors, reviewers and editors that they follow the best-practice guidelines on ethical behaviour.

3.1. Duties of the BJRS Editors [ ↑ ]

3.1.1. Fair play and editorial independence

Editors evaluate submitted manuscripts exclusively on the basis of their academic merit (importance, originality, study’s validity, clarity) and its relevance to the journal’s scope, without regard to the authors’ race, gender, sexual orientation, ethnic origin, citizenship, religious belief, political philosophy or institutional affiliation. Decisions to edit and publish are not determined by the policies of governments or any other agencies outside of the journal itself. The Editor-in-Chief has full authority over the entire editorial content of the journal and the timing of publication of that content.

3.1.2. Confidentiality

Editors and editorial staff will not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher, as appropriate.

3.1.3. Disclosure and conflicts of interest

Editors and editorial board members will not use unpublished information disclosed in a submitted manuscript for their own research purposes without the authors’ explicit written consent. Privileged information or ideas obtained by editors as a result of handling the manuscript will be kept confidential and not used for their personal advantage. Editors will recuse themselves from considering manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships/connections with any of the authors, companies or institutions connected to the papers; instead, they will ask another member of the editorial board to handle the manuscript.

3.1.4. Publication decisions

The editors ensure that all submitted manuscripts being considered for publication undergo peer-review by at least two reviewers who are expert in the field. The Editor-in-Chief is responsible for deciding which of the manuscripts submitted to the journal will be published, based on the validation of the work in question, its importance to researchers and readers, the reviewers’ comments, and such legal requirements as are currently in force regarding libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism. The Editor-in-Chief may confer with other editors or reviewers in making this decision.

3.1.5. Involvement and cooperation in investigations

Editors (in conjunction with the publisher and/or society) will take responsive measures when ethical concerns are raised with regard to a submitted manuscript or published paper. Every reported act of unethical publishing behaviour will be looked into, even if it is discovered years after publication. AP-SMART editors follow the COPE Flowcharts when dealing with cases of suspected misconduct. If, on investigation, the ethical concern is well-founded, a correction, retraction, expression of concern or other note as may be relevant, will be published in the journal.

3.2. Duties of Reviewers [ ↑ ]

3.2.1. Contribution to editorial decisions

Peer review assists editors in making editorial decisions and, through editorial communications with authors, may assist authors in improving their manuscripts. Peer review is an essential component of formal scholarly communication and lies at the heart of scientific endeavour. AP-SMART shares the view of many that all scholars who wish to contribute to the scientific process have an obligation to do a fair share of reviewing.

3.2.2. Promptness

Any invited referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should immediately notify the editors and decline the invitation to review so that alternative reviewers can be contacted.

3.2.3. Confidentiality

Any manuscripts received for review are confidential documents and must be treated as such; they must not be shown to or discussed with others except if authorized by the Editor-in-Chief (who would only do so under exceptional and specific circumstances). This applies also to invited reviewers who decline the review invitation.

3.2.4. Standards of objectivity

Reviews should be conducted objectively and observations formulated clearly with supporting arguments so that authors can use them for improving the manuscript. Personal criticism of the authors is inappropriate.

3.2.5. Acknowledgement of sources

Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that is an observation, derivation or argument that has been reported in previous publications should be accompanied by the relevant citation. A reviewer should also notify the editors of any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other manuscript (published or unpublished) of which they have personal knowledge.

3.2.6. Disclosure and conflicts of interest

Any invited referee who has conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies or institutions connected to the manuscript and the work described therein should immediately notify the editors to declare their conflicts of interest and decline the invitation to review so that alternative reviewers can be contacted.
Unpublished material disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in a reviewer’s own research without the express written consent of the authors. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for the reviewer’s personal advantage. This applies also to invited reviewers who decline the review invitation.

3.3. Duties of Authors [ ↑ ]

3.3.1. Reporting standards

Authors of original research should present an accurate account of the work performed and the results, followed by an objective discussion of the significance of the work. The manuscript should contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work. Review articles should be accurate, objective and comprehensive, while editorial 'opinion' or perspective pieces should be clearly identified as such. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behaviour and are unacceptable.

3.3.2. Data access and retention

Authors may be asked to provide the raw data of their study together with the manuscript for editorial review and should be prepared to make the data publicly available if practicable. In any event, authors should ensure accessibility of such data to other competent professionals for at least 10 years after publication (preferably via an institutional or subject-based data repository or other data centre), provided that the confidentiality of the participants can be protected and legal rights concerning proprietary data do not preclude their release.

3.3.3. Originality and plagiarism

Authors should ensure that they have written and submit only entirely original works, and if they have used the work and/or words of others, that this has been appropriately cited. Publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the work reported in the manuscript should also be cited. Plagiarism takes many forms, from "passing off" another's paper as the author's own, to copying or paraphrasing substantial parts of another's paper (without attribution), to claiming results from research conducted by others. Plagiarism in all its forms constitutes unethical publishing behaviour and is unacceptable.

3.3.4. Multiple, duplicate, redundant or concurrent submission/publication

Papers describing essentially the same research should not be published in more than one journal or primary publication. Hence, authors should not submit for consideration a manuscript that has already been published in another journal. Submission of a manuscript concurrently to more than one journal is unethical publishing behaviour and unacceptable.

The publication of some kinds of articles (such as clinical guidelines, translations) in more than one journal is sometimes justifiable, provided that certain conditions are met. The authors and editors of the journals concerned must agree to the secondary publication, which must reflect the same data and interpretation of the primary document. The primary reference must be cited in the secondary publication.

3.3.5. Authorship of the manuscript

Only persons who meet these authorship criteria should be listed as authors in the manuscript as they must be able to take public responsibility for the content: (i) made significant contributions to the conception, design, execution, data acquisition, or analysis/interpretation of the study; and (ii) drafted the manuscript or revised it critically for important intellectual content; and (iii) have seen and approved the final version of the paper and agreed to its submission for publication. All persons who made substantial contributions to the work reported in the manuscript (such as technical help, writing and editing assistance, general support) but who do not meet the criteria for authorship must not be listed as an author, but should be acknowledged in the "Acknowledgements" section after their written permission to be named as been obtained. The corresponding author should ensure that all appropriate coauthors (according to the above definition) and no inappropriate coauthors are included in the author list and verify that all coauthors have seen and approved the final version of the manuscript and agreed to its submission for publication.

3.3.6. Disclosure and conflicts of interest

Authors should—at the earliest stage possible (generally by submitting a disclosure form at the time of submission and including a statement in the manuscript)—disclose any conflicts of interest that might be construed to influence the results or their interpretation in the manuscript. Examples of potential conflicts of interest that should be disclosed include financial ones such as honoraria, educational grants or other funding, participation in speakers’ bureaus, membership, employment, consultancies, stock ownership, or other equity interest, and paid expert testimony or patent-licensing arrangements, as well as non-financial ones such as personal or professional relationships, affiliations, knowledge or beliefs in the subject matter or materials discussed in the manuscript. All sources of financial support for the work should be disclosed (including the grant number or other reference number if any).

3.3.7. Acknowledgement of sources

Authors should ensure that they have properly acknowledged the work of others, and should also cite publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work. Information obtained privately (from conversation, correspondence or discussion with third parties) must not be used or reported without explicit, written permission from the source. Authors should not use information obtained in the course of providing confidential services, such as refereeing manuscripts or grant applications, unless they have obtained the explicit written permission of the author(s) of the work involved in these services.

3.3.8. Hazards and human or animal subjects

If the work involves chemicals, procedures or equipment that have any unusual hazards inherent in their use, the authors must clearly identify these in the manuscript. If the work involves the use of animals or human participants, the authors should ensure that all procedures were performed in compliance with relevant laws and institutional guidelines and that the appropriate institutional committee(s) has approved them; the manuscript should contain a statement to this effect. Authors should also include a statement in the manuscript that informed consent was obtained for experimentation with human participants. The privacy rights of human participants must always be observed.

3.3.9. Peer review

Authors are obliged to participate in the peer review process and cooperate fully by responding promptly to editors’ requests for raw data, clarifications, and proof of ethics approval, patient consents and copyright permissions. In the case of a first decision of "revisions necessary", authors should respond to the reviewers’ comments systematically, point by point, and in a timely manner, revising and re-submitting their manuscript to the journal by the deadline given.

3.3.10. Fundamental errors in published works

When authors discover significant errors or inaccuracies in their own published work, it is their obligation to promptly notify the journal’s editors or publisher and cooperate with them to either correct the paper in the form of an erratum or to retract the paper. If the editors or publisher learns from a third party that a published work contains a significant error or inaccuracy, then it is the authors’ obligation to promptly correct or retract the paper or provide evidence to the journal editors of the correctness of the paper.

3.4. Duties of the Publisher [ ↑ ]

3.4.1. Handling of unethical publishing behavior

In cases of alleged or proven scientific misconduct, fraudulent publication or plagiarism, the publisher, in close collaboration with the editors, will take all appropriate measures to clarify the situation and to amend the article in question. This includes the prompt publication of an erratum, clarification or, in the most severe case, the retraction of the affected work. The publisher, together with the editors, shall take reasonable steps to identify and prevent the publication of papers where research misconduct has occurred, and under no circumstances encourage such misconduct or knowingly allow such misconduct to take place.

3.4.2. Access to journal content

The publisher is committed to the permanent availability and preservation of scholarly research and ensures accessibility by partnering with organizations and maintaining our own digital archive.

3.5. Crossmark Policy [ ↑ ]

Crossmark is an initiative to provide a standard way for readers to locate the current version of a piece of content. By applying the Crossmark button, Brazilian Journal of Radiation Science is committing to maintaining the content it publishes, and to alerting readers to changes if and when they occur.

Clicking on the Crossmark button will tell you the current status of a document, and may also give you additional publication record information about the document.

3.5.1. Correction and Retraction Policies

Brazilian Journal of Radiation Science is committed to uphold the integrity of the literature and publishes Errata, Expressions of Concerns or Retraction Notices dependent on the situation and in accordance with the COPE Retraction Guidelines. In all cases, these notices are linked to the original article.

More information on Brazilian Journal of Radiation Science’s guidelines can be found here. Information on COPE Retraction Guidelines can be found here: Retraction Guidelines.

3.6. Plagiarism Policy [ ↑ ]

Scientific integrity as well as the peer-review process is the heart of scholarly publishing. As a part of our commitment to protect the integrity of scholarly publications, we take the necessary steps in all aspects of publishing ethics. Plagiarism takes many forms, from intentionally passing off someone else’s work as your own to unintentional paraphrasing someone else’s work without proper attribution. Does not matter in which form or to what extent, plagiarism always constitutes unethical behavior and is unacceptable in academic publishing.

Plagiarized articles are not allowed in BJRS. Even though plagiarism is a serious issue but it’s very easy to avoid by giving proper acknowledgment to the work of others. Before submitting the manuscript to BJRS, the authors should ensure that they have written original works. In the case where authors have used someone else’s or own previously published work/words, that should be properly attributed through appropriate citation. The author shall remember to not use information obtained privately without explicit, written permission from the source; for instance, the knowledge gained through peer-reviewing of other’s work or through third party discussion.
BJRS is using iThenticate plagiarism software provided by CrossRef Similarity Check for the initial plagiarism detection but still if later on any article is found to be plagiarized then appropriate action will be taken as per our ethical policy and that article might get retracted. Overall similarity index of the manuscript should not be more than 15% for research articles and 20% for review articles with a limitation of less than 3% similarity from any individual source.

Similarity Check is a multi-publisher initiative to screen published and submitted content for originality. BJRS uses the iThenticate software to detect instances of overlapping and similar text in submitted manuscripts which compare content against its database of periodicals, the Internet, as well as other wide-range databases of articles. BJRS is committed to actively combating plagiarism and publishing original research.

3.7. Conflict of Interest Policy [ ↑ ]

The policies and guidelines provided here are in place to protect the quality and integrity of forms of scholarly practice and research, as well as the reputations of the publications produced by BJRS.

Conflict of interest - COI has been defined as a set of conditions in which professional judgment concerning a primary interest (such as validity of research) can be influenced by a secondary interest (such as financial gain).

If a guest editor, associate editor, or reviewer believes that his/her relationship to an author, if known, or the subject matter of an article, may constitute a conflict of interest for any reason, this must be disclosed to the journal editor.

3.7.1. Definition and Scope

COI exists when a participant in the publication process (author, peer reviewer, or editor) has a competing interest that could unduly influence (or be reasonably seen to do so) his or her responsibilities in the publication process. Among those responsibilities are academic honesty, unbiased conduct and reporting of research, and integrity of decisions or judgments. The publication process includes the submission of manuscripts, peer review, editorial decisions, and communication between authors, reviewers and editors.

3.7.2. Types of Conflict of Interests

Many kinds of competing interests are possible. Journals often have policies for managing financial COI, mostly based on the untested assumption that financial ties have an especially powerful influence over publication decisions and may not be apparent unless they are made explicit. However, other competing interests can be just as damaging, and just as hidden to most participants, and so must also be managed. The following are examples of competing interests; they do not include all possibilities and they may coexist.

Financial ties: This conflict is present when a participant in the publication process has received or expects to receive money (or other financial benefits such as patents or stocks), gifts, or services that may influence work related to a specific publication. Examples of financial ties to industry include payment for research, ownership of stock and stock options, as well as honoraria for advice or public speaking, consultation, service on advisory boards or medical education companies, and receipt of patents or patents pending. Competing interests can be associated with other sources of research funding including government agencies, charities (not-for-profit organizations), and professional and civic organizations, which also have agendas that may be congruent or at odds with research findings. Financial competing interests may exist not just on the basis of past activities but also on the expectation of future rewards, such as a pending grant or patent application. “Insider trading,” which is the use for one’s financial gain of information obtained through participation in research, review or editing before it is available to the general public, is a special kind of financial COI that has both legal and ethical implications.
Academic commitments: Participants in the publications process may have strong beliefs (“intellectual passion”) that commit them to a particular explanation, method, or idea. They may, as a result, be biased in conducting research that tests the commitment or in reviewing the work of others that is in favor or at odds with their beliefs. For example, if research challenging conventional wisdom is reviewed by someone who has made his or her reputation by establishing the existing paradigm, that person might judge the new research results harshly. Investigators in the same field might make extra-efforts to find fault with manuscripts from competing teams, to delay publication or relegate the work to a lesser journal. While such commitments are not generally part of author’s disclosures, editors should be aware of them and their potential influence on author(s), reviewer(s), and themselves.
Personal relationships: Personal relationships with family, friends, enemies, competitors, or colleagues can pose COIs. For example, a reviewer may have difficulty providing an unbiased review of articles by investigators who have been working colleagues. Similarly, he or she may find it difficult to be unbiased when reviewing the work of competitors. Bonds to family members may be strong enough that their competing interests should be treated as if they are also present for those directly involved with a manuscript.
Political or religious beliefs: Strong commitment to a particular political view (e.g., political position, agenda, or party) or having a strong religious conviction may pose a COI for a given publication if those political or religious issues are affirmed or challenged in the publication.
Institutional affiliations: A COI exists when a participant in the publication process is directly affiliated with an institution that on the face of it may have a position or an interest in a publication. An obvious concern is being affiliated with or employed by a company that manufactures the drug or device (or a competing one) described in the publication. However, apparently neutral institutions such as universities, hospitals, and research institutes (alone or in partnership with industry) may also have an interest (or the appearance of one) in the results of research. For example, investigators may have a COI when conducting research from a laboratory funded by private donors who could have (or appear to have) an interest in the results of the study, on a device for which the participant’s institution holds the patent, when the institution is the legal sponsor of the drug or device trial, or if the institution is in litigation in an area related to the study. Professional or civic organizations may also have competing interests because of their special interests or advocacy positions.

3.7.3. Declaring and Managing COIs

Conflicts of Interest are ubiquitous and cannot be completely eliminated from the editorial and/or authoring process. However, they can be managed constructively so that they exert as little intrusion as possible on the journal, its content and its credibility. All statements about COI by the author are requested in writing - in the notes to editor field - as a condition for analyzing a manuscript, so that authors will have a high probability of reporting possible conflicts of interest related to the manuscript, if there is.

3.7.4. The consequences for failing to declare COI

Any conflict of interest will be handled based on flowcharts used by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Charts can be downloaded and accessed from the link (http://publicationethics.org/resources/flowcharts).

3.7.5. Which COIs will result in a manuscript not being considered further?

If any or all types of Conflict of Interest (mentioned above) are detected (a priori, during the peer review process or after publication) in any text evaluated or approved, the manuscript will be suspended until the conflict of interest is resolved.

3.7.6. Responsibilities

Authors: All authors must report any Conflicts of Interest related to their research to the editor
Reviewers: All contributors must report any Conflicts of Interest related to their review assignments to the editor.
Editors: Editors must not make any editorial decisions or be involved in the editorial process if they or a close family member has a Conflict of Interest (financial or otherwise) in a particular manuscript submitted to the journal.

4. Author’s Guidelines [ ↑ ]

4.1. Formatting, Structure and Content of Papers [ ↑ ]

Articles must be writen in English. We recommend using the MS Word template supplied here when preparing the article.

4.1.1. Formatting

All elements formatting (article title, abstract, authors, affiliation, paragraphs, titles, long citation, references, etc) are described on MS Word Template. Author can uso pre-formatted styles from MS Word Quick gallery.

4.1.2. Structure

Papers will be presented according to the following sequential organization:

Title of the manuscript
Author(s)
Affiliation
Abstract
Keywords
Sections

Introduction
Materials and Methods
Results and Discussion
Conclusion
Acknowledgement
Funding Sources (if applicable)
Conflict of Interest
Referentes

The citations should follow the ABNT norms. See examples.

4.1.3. Content

4.1.3.1. Acknowledgments (optional)

Any acknowledgments must have a header and be placed in their own section.

4.1.3.2. Conflict of Interest (COI)

If any of the authors have any competing interests, then these must be declared. Information about competing interests can be found here. If there are no COI to declare, then the following statement must appear in this section:

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

If there are competing interests to declare, complete the following statement:

The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: [LIST HERE].

4.1.3.3. Disclosure of Funding Sources (if applicable)

Authors are required to declare what support they received to carry out their research. Declaring funding sources acknowledges funders' contributions, fulfills funding requirements, and promotes greater transparency in the research process. Please inform the funding agency and the funding award number.

The References at the end of the text must also comply with ABNT norms. We strongly recommend that authors cite and discuss a fair representation of relevant work by members of under-represented groups. Note that we do not place a limit on the number of references in research articles, so you are free to include whatever references and citations you think are relevant. All and only the works of authors cited in the text should appear in the References, which are typed in simple spacing between lines, separated by a simple space, and organized in alphabetical order by the surname of the first author. Whenever there are any, the authors should inform URLs and DOIs of the references used.

4.1.3.5. Link to Preprint (if applicable)

If a manuscripts submitted to BJRS has been previously deposited in the EmeRI preprint repository, authors must inform its link on “Comments fo the Editor” (1^st step of submission form).

Preprint manuscript submissions must fill the Open Science Compliance Form.

4.2. Submission Preparation Checklist [ ↑ ]

As part of the submission process, authors are required to check off their submission's compliance with all of the following items, and submissions may be returned to authors that do not adhere to these guidelines.

The contribution is original and unpublished, and is not under review for publication at any other journal; in cases to the contrary, this fact should be justified in “Comments to the editor”.
The submitted file must be in Microsoft Word, OpenOffice, or RTF.
URLs for references were informed when possible.
The articles must be prepared according to the model from the attached sample article: CLICK HERE
The text must follow the stylistic patterns and bibliographic requirements described in Guidelines for Authors found on the ‘About the Journal’ page
In the case of submissions to a peer review section (ex.: articles), the instructions available at Guaranteeing blinded peer review were followed.
There is no fee to authors for submitting to BJRS nor Article Processing Charge (APC).

4.3. Online Submissions [ ↑ ]

The author(s) must register (Login/Password) on the BJRS’s website and correctly complete their profiles. After performing these steps, they should go to "New Submission" button, on OJS Dashboard, and start the submission process, in which they will perform the five basic steps:

Start the submission process, confirming that they agree with the conditions established by the Journal (by checking the checkboxes of the conditions and the copyright declaration) and selecting the adequate section;
Transfer the manuscript file formatted according to the template and Author’s Guidelines to the system and also all supplementary information, such as the Open Science Compliance Form, certificate of presentation, research instruments, data sets, tables, figures and/or tables that cannot be integrated into the text itself;
Metadata: title of the paper, subtitle (if any), abstract, complete information of authors and co-authors, and keywords.
Confirmation: complete the submission.

After completing the four steps described above, the author(s) must wait for the Editor's email. These are the following steps:

If the article complies with the formatting rules of the Journal, it will be inserted into the editorial process. If the article does not comply with the Journal's formatting rules, it will be rejected. The motivation for the rejection is sent exclusively by email. It is the responsibility of the authors: to keep their email addresses updated on the platform and always check their email accounts, including the spam box, for automatic notifications from our system. Please note that some email servers (such as Hotmail) automatically flag messages from OJS as spam; you should avoid using such servers if you wish to receive updates on the reviewing process by email or change the configuration of your spam filter. The Editorial Team is not responsible for any communication failures or errors in the emails registered in our database.
Once the manuscript is inserted in the editorial process, authors must follow the submission steps through the platform.
Articles inserted in the editorial process will be forwarded to at least two specialists for double-blind or open peer reviews. If modifications are requested in the paper, the author(s) must, within 15 calendar days, count from the date of the "Editorial Decision," edit the article and send the new version through the "Assessments" tab in the system.
If reviewers' decision is contradictory, another reviewer will be selected by the Editor to evaluate the paper.
When the evaluation process is completed, the editorial committee will send a formal decision to the authors.
If the paper is accepted but modifications are requested, the author(s) must, within five calendar days from the request for changes, make the necessary adjustments and send the paper back to the Journal, inserting the file in the system by opening a new conversation in "Evaluation Discussion."

Reviewer’s Guideline [ ↑ ]

5.1. Peer Review and Editorial Procedure [ ↑ ]

Peer review is an essential part of the publication process and it ensures that BJRS maintains the highest quality standards for its published papers. All manuscripts submitted to our journals are strictly and thoroughly peer-reviewed by experts.

Immediately after submission, the journal’s Managing Editor will perform a technical pre-check of the manuscript. A suitable academic editor will be notified of the submission and invited to perform an editorial pre-check and recommend reviewers. Academic editors can decide to continue with the peer review process, reject a manuscript, or request revisions before peer-review. In the case of continuing the peer review process, the Editorial Office will organize the peer review, which is performed by independent experts, and collect at least two review reports per manuscript. We ask authors for sufficient revisions (with a second round of peer review, when necessary) before a final decision is made.

The final decision is made by an academic editor (usually the Editor-in-Chief/Editorial Board Member of a journal or the Guest Editor of a Special Issue). Accepted manuscripts are then copy-edited and English-edited internally.

5.2. Reviewers’ Profile and Responsibilities [ ↑ ]

The role of the reviewer is vital and bears a great responsibility in ensuring the integrity of the scholarly record. Every reviewer is expected to perform manuscript evaluation in a timely, transparent, and ethical manner, following the COPE guidelines for peer reviewers.

Reviewers should meet the following criteria:

Hold no conflicts of interest with any of the authors;
Should not come from the same institution as the authors;
Should not have published together with the authors in the last three years;
Hold a PhD;
Have relevant experience and have a proven publication record in the field of the submitted paper;
Are experienced scholars in the field of the submitted paper;
Hold an official and recognized academic affiliation.

BJRS strives for a rigorous peer review to ensure a thorough evaluation of each manuscript—this is a fundamental task for our reviewers. Reviewers who accept to review a manuscript are expected to:

Have the necessary expertise to judge the scientific quality of the manuscript;
Provide quality review reports and remain responsive throughout the peer review process;
Maintain standards of professionalism and ethics.

5.3. General Guidelines for Reviewers [ ↑ ]

5.3.1. Invitation to Review

Manuscripts submitted to BJRS are reviewed by at least two experts, who can be volunteer reviewers, members of the Editorial Board or reviewers suggested by the academic editor during the preliminary check. Reviewers are asked to evaluate the quality of the manuscript and to provide a recommendation to the external editor on whether a manuscript should be accepted, requires revisions, or should be rejected.

We ask invited reviewers to:

accept or decline any invitations as soon as possible (based on the manuscript title and abstract);
suggest alternative reviewers if an invitation must be declined;
request a deadline extension as soon as possible in case more time is required to provide a comprehensive report.

At this stage, you receive a review request by email which contains links to the journal website and to the submission. The request is displayed in your Dashboard, with due dates to accept or decline the request and due dates to submit your review if you were to accept it.

5.3.2. Potential Conflicts of Interest (COI)

We ask reviewers to declare any potential conflicts of interest and email the journal Editorial Office if they are unsure if something constitutes a potential conflict of interest. Possible conflicts of interest include (but are not limited to):

Reviewer works in the same institute as one of the authors;
Reviewer is a co-author, collaborator, joint grant holder, or has any other academic link, with any of the authors within the past three years;
Reviewer has a close personal relationship, rivalry or antipathy to any of the authors;
Reviewer may in any way gain or lose financially from publication of the paper;
Reviewer has any other non-financial conflicts of interest (political, personal, religious, ideological, academic, intellectual, commercial or any other) with any of the authors.

Reviewers should disclose any conflicts of interest that may be perceived as bias for or against the paper or authors.
Please kindly note that if reviewers are asked to assess a manuscript they previously reviewed for another journal, this is not considered to be a conflict of interest. In this case, reviewers should feel free to let the Editorial Office know if the manuscript has been improved or not compared to the previous version.
Reviewers are also recommended to read the relevant descriptions in the Ethical Guidelines For Peer Reviewers by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

5.3.3. Declaration of Confidentiality

BJRS operate double-blind or open peer review.

5.3.3.1. Double-blind peer review

Until the article is published, reviewers should keep the content of the manuscript, including the Abstract, confidential. Reviewers should also be careful not to reveal their identity to the authors, either in their comments or in metadata for reports submitted in Microsoft Word or PDF format. Reviewers must inform the Editorial Office if they would like a colleague to complete the review on their behalf.

5.3.3.2. Open peer review

BJRS offer the possibility for authors to publish review reports together with their paper (Open Review) and for reviewers to sign their open review reports once “Open Review” is requested by the authors. However, this will only be done at publication with the reviewer’s permission. In all other cases, review reports are considered confidential and will only be disclosed with the explicit permission of the reviewer.

5.3.4. Confidential material

If you accept, you must treat the materials you receive as confidential documents. This means you can’t share them with anyone without prior authorization from the editor. Since peer review is confidential, you also must not share information about the review with anyone without permission from the editors and authors.

5.3.5. Review Reports

We have listed some general instructions regarding the review report for your consideration below.

To begin with, please consider the following guidelines:

Read the whole article as well as the supplementary material, if there is any, paying close attention to the figures, tables, data, and methods.
Your report should critically analyze the article as a whole but also specific sections and the key concepts presented in the article.
Please ensure your comments are detailed so that the authors may correctly understand and address the points you raise.
Reviewers must not recommend citation of work by themselves, close colleagues, another author, or the journal when it is not clearly necessary to improve the quality of the manuscript under review.
Reviewers must not recommend excessive citation of their work (self-citations), another author’s work (honorary citations) or articles from the journal where the manuscript was submitted as a means of increasing the citations of the reviewer/authors/journal. You can provide references as needed, but they must clearly improve the quality of the manuscript under review.
Please maintain a neutral tone and focus on providing constructive criticism that will help the authors improve their work. Derogatory comments will not be tolerated.

5.3.5.1. Journal-specific instructions

When you sit down to write the review, make sure you familiarize yourself with the journal guidelines which is available at the BJRS Policies page.
First read the article. You might consider spot checking major issues by choosing which section to read first. Below we offer some tips about handling specific parts of the paper.

5.3.5.2. Review reports should contain the following:

A brief summary (one short paragraph) outlining the aim of the paper, its main contributions and strengths.
General concept comments
These comments are focused on the scientific content of the manuscript and should be specific enough for the authors to be able to respond.

Article: highlighting areas of weakness, the testability of the hypothesis, methodological inaccuracies, missing controls, etc.
Review: commenting on the completeness of the review topic covered, the relevance of the review topic, the gap in knowledge identified, the appropriateness of references, etc.

Specific comments referring to line numbers, tables or figures that point out inaccuracies within the text or sentences that are unclear. These comments should also focus on the scientific content and not on spelling, formatting or English language problems, as these can be addressed at a later stage by our internal staff.

5.3.5.3. Structuring your review

Your review will help the editor decide whether or not to publish the article. It will also aid the author and allow them to improve their manuscript. Giving your overall opinion and general observations of the article is essential. Your comments should be courteous and constructive and should not include any remarks or personal details including your name. Providing insight into any deficiencies is important. You should explain and support your judgement so that both editors and authors are able to fully understand the reasoning behind your comments. You should indicate whether your comments are your own opinion or are reflected by the data and evidence.

5.3.5.4. Methodology

If the manuscript you are reviewing is reporting an experiment, check the methods section first. The following cases are considered major flaws and should be flagged:

Unsound methodology
Discredited method
Missing processes known to be influential on the area of reported research
A conclusion drawn in contradiction to the statistical or qualitative evidence reported in the manuscript

For analytical papers examine the sampling report, which is mandated in time-dependent studies. For qualitative research make sure that a systematic data analysis is presented and sufficient descriptive elements with relevant quotes from interviews are listed in addition to the author’s narrative.

5.3.5.5. Research data and visualizations

Once you are satisfied that the methodology is sufficiently robust, examine any data in the form of figures, tables, or images. Authors may add research data, including data visualizations, to their submission to enable readers to interact and engage more closely with their research after publication. Critical issues in research data, which are considered to be major flaws can be related to insufficient data points, statistically non-significant variations and unclear data tables.

5.3.5.6. Ethical considerations

Experiments including patient or animal data should properly be documented. Most journals require ethical approval by the author’s host organization. Please check journal-specific guidelines for such cases (available from the journal’s homepage.

5.3.5.7. Overview

If you don’t spot any major flaws, consider the article from your own perspective. When you sit down to write the review, again make sure you familiarize yourself with journal guidelines.

5.3.5.8. The final decision

The editor ultimately decides whether to accept or reject the article. The editor will weigh all views and may call for another opinion or ask the author for a revised paper before making a decision. The submission system provides reviewers with a notification of the final decision.

5.3.5.9. After your review

Do not forget that, even after finalizing your review, you must treat the article and any linked files or data as confidential documents. This means you must not share them or information about the review with anyone without prior authorization from the editor.

Finally, we take the opportunity to thank you sincerely on behalf of the journal, editors and author(s) for the time you have taken to give your valuable input to the article.

5.3.6. Helping questions to guide the review

General questions to help guide your review:

Does the article match your area of expertise? Only accept if you feel you can provide a high-quality review.
Do you have a potential conflict of interest? Disclose this to the editor when you respond.
Do you have time? Reviewing can be a lot of work – before you commit, make sure you can meet the deadline.

Respond to the invitation as soon as you can (even if it is to decline) – a delay in your decision slows down the review process and means more waiting for the author. If you do decline the invitation, it would be helpful if you could provide suggestions for alternative reviewers.

5.3.6.1. Specific questions to help guide your review report for research articles:

Is the manuscript clear, relevant for the field and presented in a well-structured manner?
Are the cited references mostly recent publications (within the last 5 years) and relevant? Does it include an excessive number of self-citations?
Is the manuscript scientifically sound and is the experimental design appropriate to test the hypothesis?
Are the manuscript’s results reproducible based on the details given in the methods section?
Are the figures/tables/images/schemes appropriate? Do they properly show the data? Are they easy to interpret and understand? Is the data interpreted appropriately and consistently throughout the manuscript? Please include details regarding the statistical analysis or data acquired from specific databases.
Are the conclusions consistent with the evidence and arguments presented?
Please evaluate the ethics statements and data availability statements to ensure they are adequate.

5.3.6.2. General questions to help guide your review report for review articles:

Is the review clear, comprehensive and of relevance to the field? Is a gap in knowledge identified?
Was a similar review published recently and, if yes, is this current review still relevant and of interest to the scientific community?
Are the cited references mostly recent publications (within the last 5 years) and relevant? Are any relevant citations omitted? Does it include an excessive number of self-citations?
Are the statements and conclusions drawn coherent and supported by the listed citations?
Are the figures/tables/images/schemes appropriate? Do they properly show the data? Are they easy to interpret and understand?

The content of your review report will be rated by an Academic Editor from a scientific point of view as well as general usefulness to the improvement of the manuscript.

5.3.7. Guidance documents

For further guidance on writing a critical review, please refer to the following documents:

COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers. Committee on Publication Ethics. [Available online].
Hames, I. Peer Review and Manuscript Management in Scientific Journals: Guidelines for Good Practice. Wiley-Blackwell: Oxford, UK, 2007.
Writing a journal article review. Australian National University: Canberra, Australia, 2010. [Available online].
Golash-Boza, T. How to write a peer review for an academic journal: Six steps from start to finish. [Available online].
Reviewer steps video from PKP: [Available online]
Editorial workflow in OJS 3.3. Module 6: The reviewer's steps on YouTube: [Available online]

5.4. Online Review Proccess [ ↑ ]

Reviewers must login on the BJRS’s website to proceed with the review. Review process will present four basic steps:

Request: at this step you can check document’s metadata, review schedule, accept or decline the invitation;
Guidelines: on the second step, reviewer can access this document to check the guidelines;
Download & Review: third step will present the document link for download; the review form; a field to upload the review files; a Review Discussion area, where the reviewer can discuss with editor and authors, according to Open Science Compliance Form filled by the authors; and a drop-down menu for reviewer recommendation. Recommendations options are:

Accept Submission: it is ready to go to Copyediting as it is.
Revisions Required: it requires minor changes that can be reviewed and accepted by the editor.
Resubmit for Review: it requires major changes and another round of peer reviewing.
Resubmit Elsewhere: it doesn’t seem like a good fit for the focus and scope of this journal.
Decline Submission: it has too many weakness to ever be accepted.
See Comments: if none of the above recommendations make sense, you can leave a comment for the editor detailing your concerns.

Completion: the last step displays a “thank you” text.

Bear in mind that there will be the opportunity to direct separate comments to both the editor and author. Once you are ready to submit your report, follow the instructions in the email or contact the editor directly in case of any difficulties.