Cadernos Ibero-Americanos de Direito Sanitário (CIADS) adopt ethics and scientific integrity as fundamental principles of the editorial process and of scholarly communication.

This policy establishes standards and procedures applicable to authors, co-authors, editors, and reviewers, and applies to all content submitted to and published by the journal, regardless of the type of manuscript.

1. Ethics and Scientific Integrity in the Editorial Process

• CIADS is a member of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and follows the Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing.
• The journal follows the recommendations of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), the Council of Science Editors (CSE), the Association of Learned and Professional Society Publishers (ALPSP), and the EQUATOR Network, adopting international standards of integrity, transparency, and scientific rigor.
• The citation of references must comply exclusively with criteria of scientific relevance and effective contribution to academic debate, avoiding self-promotion or artificial citation inflation
• When applicable, authors must follow international research reporting guidelines, such as CONSORT, PRISMA, and STROBE, in accordance with the EQUATOR Network.
• At the national level, it also adopts the Basic Guidelines for Integrity in Scientific Activity, issued by the Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq).
• Editorial decisions are systematically recorded in the journal’s editorial management system, ensuring traceability, transparency, and the possibility of ethical audit of the editorial process.
• Research involving human beings must comply with the Declaration of Helsinki and current legislation, with approval from a Research Ethics Committee and informed consent, in accordance with the Journal Policy on Research Ethics Involving Human Beings.
• The principles of ethics and scientific integrity adopted by CIADS are compatible with and guide the implementation of the journal’s Open Science guidelines, ensuring responsible transparency, data protection, and the integrity of the editorial process.
• The use of Artificial Intelligence tools must comply with the CIADS Policy on the Use of Artificial Intelligence Tools and with the principles of transparency, responsibility, human authorship, and scientific integrity. When applicable, such use must be explicitly declared by the authors. The attribution of authorship or co-authorship to Artificial Intelligence tools is not permitted, and full responsibility for the content of the manuscript lies entirely with the authors.

1.1 Authorship and Co-authorship

• Author is a person who has contributed directly, substantially, and intellectually to the development of the study and the manuscript, having performed at least one of the following activities: conception and/or design of the work; data analysis or interpretation; drafting of the article; or critical revision of its intellectual content.
• Co-author meets the same ethical and scientific criteria for authorship, differing only in position in the list of authors, without ethical or scientific hierarchy.
• Approval of the final version of the manuscript and the assumption of public, ethical, and scientific responsibility for the published content constitute mandatory conditions of authorship applicable to all authors and co-authors.
• Only significant intellectual contributions qualify for authorship; financial, institutional, administrative, technical, or operational support activities, including data collection without substantial intellectual involvement, must be acknowledged in the Acknowledgments section.
• The order of authorship must reflect the effective contributions of each author and be defined by consensus before submission; subsequent changes require formal justification and the express agreement of all authors.
• A corresponding author must be designated, responsible for communication with the editorial office and for submitting the statements required during the editorial process.
• Collaboration among professors, researchers, and students must observe the same principles of scientific integrity and editorial ethics applicable to all authors; the exclusion of students with significant intellectual contribution or the inclusion of participants whose role was merely operational, technical, or administrative is prohibited.
• The declaration of authors’ contributions is mandatory at the time of submission and must be presented in narrative form, with roles inspired by ICMJE recommendations and consistent with the principles of the CRediT Taxonomy, in accordance with COPE guidelines.
• Manuscripts derived from theses, dissertations, or institutional research projects must declare their origin at the time of submission. The availability of the original work in institutional repositories does not prevent the submission or evaluation of the manuscript.
• The editorial office may request, at any time, clarifications or supporting documentation regarding declared contributions, for purposes of editorial verification or ethical investigation.
• Financial, institutional, academic, or personal conflicts of interest must be declared; when ethical, legal, or confidentiality constraints prevent full disclosure of information, this condition must be explicitly stated and justified.
• Non-compliance with this policy may result in rejection of the manuscript, publication of corrections, expressions of concern, or retraction, in accordance with COPE guidelines.

1.2 Responsibilities of Editors

• Decide on manuscripts based on scientific, ethical, and technical criteria.
• Ensure confidentiality and impartiality.
• Prevent, identify, and address plagiarism, data fabrication or falsification, self-plagiarism, and citation manipulation.
• Declare and manage conflicts of interest.
• Ensure transparency of policies, guidelines, and evaluation criteria.
• Oversee peer review, ensuring consistency and compliance with deadlines, adopting the double-blind peer review model that guarantees anonymity between authors and reviewers throughout the evaluation process.
• Promote diversity and inclusion in the editorial board and in evaluation.
• Adopt corrective measures, including corrections, retractions, or expressions of concern.
• Continuously update themselves in ethics and editorial best practices.
• Safeguard the scientific quality and social relevance of published articles.

1.3 Responsibilities of Reviewers

• Maintain absolute confidentiality regarding evaluated manuscripts.
• Evaluate works with impartiality, objectivity, and technical grounding.
• Declare conflicts of interest that compromise evaluation.
• Meet deadlines or communicate impediments.
• Accept manuscripts compatible with their technical competence.
• Prepare clear, respectful, and constructive reviews.
• Suggest relevant literature without self-promotion or bias.
• Report suspected scientific misconduct.
• Not use information obtained for personal benefit.
• Preserve autonomy and scientific integrity.

1.4 Conflicts of Interest

• All must declare financial, institutional, academic, personal, or other conflicts that may influence editorial or scientific decisions, including when nonexistent, and this condition must be explicitly stated.
• The editorial office may reassign manuscripts or adopt corrective measures to preserve fairness.
• Conflicts declared by the authors will be published together with the article.
• Intentional omission may result in rejection or retraction.

1.5 Scientific Misconduct

• Manuscripts submitted to the journal must be original, unpublished, and not under simultaneous consideration by another journal.
• Scientific misconduct includes, among others, plagiarism, fabrication or falsification of data, redundant publication, and improper authorship (ghost, honorary, or exclusion of legitimate authors).
• All manuscripts undergo textual similarity analysis using CopySpider software.
• Inadequate or undeclared use of Artificial Intelligence tools, when contrary to journal policies, may be characterized as scientific misconduct.
• Reports of scientific misconduct may be submitted by any interested party, with confidentiality, adversarial proceedings, and right of defense ensured.
• Measures resulting from proven scientific misconduct may include, among others, rejection of the manuscript, temporary suspension of submissions, institutional notification, publication of expressions of concern, or article retraction.
• Investigations and decisions related to scientific misconduct follow the workflows, principles, and recommendations of COPE.

1.6 Corrections, Retractions, and Addenda

• Corrections, retractions, and expressions of concern will be public, clear, traceable, and permanently linked to the original article, with explicit indication of the document’s status.
• Whenever it is necessary to supplement, update, or clarify relevant information in an already published article, without error or scientific misconduct, the journal may issue an addendum linked to the original article and evaluated by the editors.
• During investigations, an Expression of Concern may be published, in accordance with COPE recommendations.
• Decisions on correction or retraction are made by the editors, in consultation with the editorial committee and, when necessary, the authors and the institutions involved.
• All corrections, retractions, and expressions of concern will have their own DOI and will remain linked to the original article and will be duly communicated to indexing systems and relevant databases.
• Authors must notify the journal of relevant errors identified after publication.
• The objective of corrections and retractions is to preserve the integrity and reliability of the scientific literature, and not to punish authors.

Updated on: 23 December 2025