Code of ethics

 

The Revista da Faculdade Mineira de Direito is a vehicle for the dissemination of legal knowledge linked to the Graduate Program in Law at PUC Minas (PPGD PUC Minas). The priority of themes and topics for publication are defined by the Editorial Committee together with the Editorial Board both linked to the concentration areas of PPGD PUC Minas and its corresponding lines of research. Henceforth, the focus of the Journal follows the three areas of concentration and nine lines of research described below:

 

Democracy, Private Autonomy and Regulation

  • Social and Economic Function of Legal Institutions

  • New Paradigms, Subjects and Rights

  • Labor, Democracy and Effectiveness

Democracy, Constitution and Internationalization

  • The Process in the Construction of the Democratic Rule of Law

  • Democratic Constitutionalism

  • Human Rights, Integration and Plurinational State

Democracy, Freedom and Citizenship

  • Development and Public Policies

  • Criminal Intervention and Penal Guarantism

  • Theory of Law and Justice

 

The Revista da Faculdade Mineira de Direito is currently developing a policy to foster the development of themes considered as a priority in the internationalization process of the PPGD PUC Minas. Henceforth, it is presenting a series of calls to the scientific community for the presentation of Thematic Dossiers, with two invited editors, one belonging to the Faculty of PPGD and the other a foreign academic guest.

 

EDITORIAL TEAM FUNCTIONS AND DUTIES

 

Editorial Committee

 

The Editorial Committee is responsible for setting up Revista da Faculdade Mineira de Direito, implementing the policies defined by the Editorial Committee. In addition, it executes the guidelines established by the Coordination for the Improvement of Higher Education Personnel (CAPES) and operational aspects of the Open Journal Systems (OJS), such as the assignment of roles to users and the fulfillment of editorial standards.

 

Editorial Council

 

The Editorial Council, composed of doctoral professors with scientific and editorial knowledge of excellence, has the responsibility to: recommend the policies of Revista da Faculdade Mineira de Direito; propose thematic dossiers; and to offer consultation in case of divergence in the editorial process.

 

Board of Reviewers

 

The Board of Reviewers, composed mostly of doctoral professors, with acknowledged scientific production, evaluates, according to the procedure indicated in sequence, the articles submitted to Revista da Faculdade Mineira de Direito through the Open Journal Systems (OJS). Its work aims to contribute to the selection and improvement of articles submitted, in a clear, respectful, impartial and confidential manner.

 

EVALUATION PROCESS

 

An editorial team will conduct a preliminary assessment and may summarily reject articles that do not comply with the editorial rules regarding the number of co-authors, title, formal rules, originality, adequacy of the topic to the purpose and focus of the Journal.

The manuscripts approved in the preliminary assessment will be sent to the editors of one of the lines of research, or to the guest editors in the case of the dossier, for managing the corresponding peer reviews.

When the manuscript is rejected in the preliminary evaluation, the authors will be notified by the editorial team, indicating the reasons for the decision. The author may request a review to the Editorial Committee. Rejected manuscripts can be presented for a later volume if the originality is maintained and the deficiencies are corrected.

When the number of manuscripts to be evaluated is greater than the regular capacity of the journal, manuscripts by international authors, teaching authors linked to the Postgraduate Law Program and reviewers who are collaborators of the Journal as well as those manuscripts written in English, will have preference in the forwarding for peer review.

 

Peer Evaluation

 

After the preliminary assessment by the editorial team, the work will be sent, without any elements that allow its identification, to the analysis of anonymous reviewers for qualitative evaluation of form and content, following the double blind peer review system.

The said reviewers are members of the body of evaluators of the journal (mostly external, respecting a minimum of 75% exogeny).

The works may be rejected, approved, or approved with reservations (necessary corrections) by the peer reviews. In the latter case, the author will be informed of the necessary corrections. The deadline for correction is 15 (fifteen) days.

The final decision to publish the work belongs to the editorial commission.

In the case of two dissenting peer recommendations regarding the publication, the editorial decision will be made by the directors of the editorial board, which will notify the author of the reasons for the rejection when applicable.

GOOD PRACTICES AND EDITORIAL COMPLIANCE

The editorial board may, after verifying the existence of irregularities resulting from the misconduct of authors, reviewers or the editorial team, overturn their acts, going as far as excluding articles already published, with due notification to the authors.

The following are considered academic misconducts:

  1. Failure to respect the general rules that define plagiarism.

  2. The inclusion of names as authors of people who did not contribute directly to the manuscript, including when the co-authorship is between teachers and students.

  3. Disrespect for ethical standards for research on human beings.

  4. The failure to inform of possible conflicts of interest with members of the editorial board, or body of reviewers.

  5. The simultaneous submission of manuscripts to more than one publication.

  6. Omission to specify any of the authors participation in research teams that collaborated in the development of theses present in the manuscript; or failure to specify receiving funding from national or international agencies; or the development of ideas previously linked to activities in the legal profession, such as consultancies, procedural documents, decisions or opinions paid for other purposes.

  7. The issuance of a decision that conceals ideological, political, or personal motivations.