The Journal Of Psychology: Theory and Practice (JPTP) is committed to the quality and ethical rigor of its publications. All editorial processes, authorship submissions, peer review, and handling of cases involving editorial misconduct follow the guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

The JPTP takes allegations of research or publication misconduct very seriously. If the editorial board suspects inappropriate behavior, it will request an investigation from 1) the research-supporting institution, 2) the researcher's affiliated institution, 3) the funding agency (if applicable), and 4) the relevant national research body. Allegations of misconduct made by identified or anonymous individuals will only be investigated if there is appropriate evidence to support the complaint. If warranted, sanctions will be applied after careful consideration. In severe cases, the author's home institution and/or the authors themselves will be duly notified by email, and the journal reserves the right to reject future work from these individuals.

Unacceptable unethical practices that should be reported with the utmost urgency to the Journal include plagiarism, redundant or duplicate publication of research data, recycling or translation of previously published manuscripts, data fabrication or manipulation, research conducted without proper ethical approval and ensuring the protection of participants' rights (according to the National Health Council's RESOLUTION No. 466 and RESOLUTION 510/16, DECEMBER 12th, 2012), authorship omission or manipulation, and conflict of interest omission.

 

Conflict of Interest

Any intellectual, economic, political, or personal element that may interfere with an impartial evaluation of the article is considered a conflict of interest.

Examples of conflicts of interest include, but are not limited to:

Reviewers:

• Being from the same institution as any of the authors of the manuscript.
• Having a personal or professional relationship with any of the authors of the manuscript.
• Benefiting from the outcome of the manuscript's evaluation.

Authors:

• Receiving financial support from the pharmaceutical industry or any other agency that potentially has an interest in the study's results.

 

Plagiarism Detection System

We use plagiarism detection software to ensure the integrity of our publications. Initially approved manuscripts will undergo analysis. If replicated content from previous publications is detected, the authors will be contacted by the editors of The Journal Of Psychology: Theory and Practice for necessary adjustments. If the section editor and Editor-in-Chief deem the adjustments made to be inadequate, the Editorial Board of the Journal will convene to decide whether to proceed with the publication of the manuscript in question or to deny it.

 

Author Guidelines

The criterion for being considered an author of a manuscript is to have made a significant intellectual contribution to the production in terms of study design, execution, data collection, analysis and interpretation of results, or critical review. All authors need to be aware of and approve the submitted version of the manuscript. During the submission process, the Journal requests a breakdown of each author's participation in the study.

• All articles should indicate a corresponding author and their complete contact information. In the case of articles with multiple co-authors, there should be a consensus on who will be the corresponding author. The corresponding author is responsible for responding to editorial inquiries and communicating updates in the evaluation process to the other authors.
• All authors should indicate their institutional and geographical affiliations at the time of the study's production.
• At the time of submission, authors must declare if there were any conflicts of interest during the conduct of the study.

By submitting the article, authors automatically acknowledge and agree to the following:

• The results are original and have not been fully or partially published previously in journals (print or online) or book chapters (print or ebook). All authors are responsible for the accuracy and integrity of the texts and information submitted to the Journal.
• Submitted manuscripts must cite and reference all theoretical data, empirical research results, program codes, and other materials extracted from previous research. Partial or full reproduction of third-party materials should only be done with express permission.
• The manuscript must not be simultaneously submitted for evaluation to another journal.
• The authors guarantee that they have reviewed and agree with the content of the version submitted to the Journal.
• If any errors or mistakes are identified after the publication of the article, the authors will notify the Journal for correction or retraction. Whenever possible, we will accommodate this request, except in exceptional cases.

 

Guidelines for Reviewers

Reviewers for JPTP are experienced clinicians, researchers, and/or academics who are experts in the subject matter of the manuscript.

By accepting the invitation to review articles submitted to JPTP, reviewers are automatically aware of and agree to the following:

• All texts should be evaluated objectively and impartially, without any form of discrimination or intolerance.
• The article text and the information contained therein are confidential and must not be shared, disclosed, or discussed with third parties without the editor's authorization.
• In the case of research misconduct, reviewers must promptly alert the editors about the matter.
• If reviewers lack expertise in the topic or appropriate qualifications to conduct the evaluation, they must promptly inform the editor, declining to provide the review.
• Before accepting to provide the review, reviewers must promptly disclose any conflicts of interest they may have, declining to provide the review if necessary.
• The evaluation should be submitted to the Journal within 3 weeks. If reviewers require an extension of the deadline, a formal request should be made to the editor promptly. If any unforeseen circumstances prevent reviewers from fulfilling their commitment, the editor should be contacted.
• The evaluation should be conducted in a constructive, polite, and formal manner, without any hostile, inappropriate, or irrelevant content.

 

Guidelines for Editors

• Editors commit to oversee all stages of the evaluation process (identifying and assigning reviewers, synthesizing reviewers' comments, and making editorial decisions), ensuring objective judgments based on the scientific merit of the work, impartially and without discrimination.
• They authorize the discussion of manuscripts under review with third parties if it is essential for the review process.
• They safeguard the originality and integrity of the evaluated texts, taking immediate action in cases of ethical misconduct in research.
• They commit to participating in quarterly meetings to discuss journal goals, as well as evaluating the mission and achieved objectives.

 

Complaints and Appeals

Authors who disagree with the editor's feedback can contest the decisions of the editorial board, initially outlining their disagreement in their response letter to the reviewers. If their challenge goes beyond scientific content, they can submit an appeal letter directed to the Editor-in-Chief of JPTP. An appeal will only overturn a previous decision if new information or arguments are available and will not reverse a decision in the absence of new evidence. Depending on the case, the editorial board may deem it necessary to seek additional evaluations from other reviewers to make a final decision.

 

Post-Publication Changes

Maximum care is expected in the preparation and submission of manuscripts to JPTP. However, if authors identify any errors or inaccuracies after acceptance or publication of an article, they should notify the journal via email, especially those that may affect the interpretation of the data. This request will be carefully reviewed by the Editor-in-Chief and the associate editors of the journal, and any necessary changes will be explicitly identified and made available in open access, linked to the original file.

If readers identify any inaccuracies, errors, or ethical inadequacies in published data in an JPTP article, they should notify the journal via email, especially those that may affect the interpretation of the data. This request will be carefully reviewed by the Editor-in-Chief and the associate editors of the journal, and any necessary changes will be explicitly identified and made available in open access, linked to the original file.

The post-publication changes anticipated by the journal include: corrigendum (for minor adjustments that do not impact the interpretation of the research conclusions), retraction (for changes that substantially alter the interpretation of the research conclusions), and in rare circumstances, removal (in cases of identified ethical misconduct in research, defamation, or other legal infractions). The goal of this mechanism for permanent and transparent changes is to ensure the integrity of the academic record.