Reviewer Integrity Policy

Reviewer Integrity Policy – Revista Direito Público

Revista Direito Público bases its editorial policy on the principles of ethics, impartiality, methodological rigor, and a firm commitment to the scientific advancement of Law. In this context, reviewers collaborating with the journal must adhere to the guidelines outlined below, in accordance with international and national best practices established by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), the Brazilian Association of Scientific Editors (ABEC), SciELO, Web of Science, WAME, CNPq, FAPESP, and Elsevier.

1. Objectivity, Impartiality, and Scientific Responsibility

Peer reviews must be conducted with objectivity, impartiality, scientific grounding, and within the established deadlines, strictly based on scholarly criteria such as quality, originality, argumentative coherence, and the manuscript’s contribution to the legal field. The role of the reviewer is to provide constructive feedback that enhances the quality of the manuscript and research.

Theoretical or methodological disagreements between the reviewer and the author(s) are not sufficient grounds for rejection, unless the content clearly violates the editorial and institutional guidelines of the journal. Evaluations based on personal preferences or criteria outside the scope of the official review form are not acceptable.

2. Confidentiality

All manuscripts submitted to Revista Direito Público are subject to a double-blind peer review process, and the identity of both authors and reviewers must be kept strictly confidential—unless both parties explicitly agree to an open peer review format.

It is strictly forbidden to disclose, use for personal benefit, or share any information obtained during the review process. The content under review—including data, arguments, or partial conclusions—may not be reused by the reviewer in their own work or passed on to third parties, unless expressly authorized by the editorial board.

3. Conflict of Interest

Reviewers must decline invitations to review when they identify any potential conflict of interest that may compromise their impartiality or the perception of their objectivity. Conflicts include, but are not limited to:

• Recent or ongoing scientific collaboration with any of the authors (in research projects, publications, academic advising, co-authorship, or mentorship);
  
  
• Institutional, familial, or personal relationships with the author(s);
  
  
• A direct interest in the outcomes of the research being reviewed.
  
  

According to FAPESP (2014, p. 25), a potential conflict of interest arises "in situations in which the coexistence between the researcher's duty to advance science and other interests—although legitimate—may reasonably be perceived, either by the researcher or by others, as conflicting and detrimental to the objectivity and impartiality of scientific decisions, even regardless of the researcher’s awareness or intent."
[Available at: http://www.fapesp.br/boaspraticas/FAPESP-Codigo_de_Boas_Praticas_Cientificas_2014.pdf. Accessed on: June 30, 2025].

4. Review Quality and Commitment to Scientific Development

Peer review must aim to enhance the quality of academic debate, through clear, respectful, and technically grounded feedback. Destructive criticism, offensive remarks, or personal value judgments will be disregarded and may lead to the exclusion of the reviewer from future collaborations with the journal.

The review content must align with the evaluation form provided by the editorial board, ensuring standardization and fairness in the editorial decision-making process.

5. Ethical Responsibility and Editorial Transparency

Revista Direito Público reserves the right to remove reviewers who fail to comply with the principles stated herein or who engage in unethical conduct, such as:

• Submission of biased or partial reviews;
  
  
• Recurrent delays without justification;
  
  
• Misuse or misappropriation of manuscript ideas;
  
  
• Requesting inappropriate citations (coercive self-citation);
  
  
• Breach of confidentiality rules.
  
  

Such cases will be evaluated by the editorial board in accordance with COPE’s recommended procedures, and may result in formal warnings, suspension, or notification to the reviewer’s affiliated institution, depending on the severity of the case.

6. Ongoing Training and Development

The journal encourages the continuous professional development of its reviewers, recommending the study of COPE’s guidelines and other materials on scientific publishing ethics. The editorial board is available to support reviewers and clarify any questions regarding expected standards and procedures.

Note: This policy is subject to periodic revision to ensure compliance with international best practices in research integrity and editorial ethics.