Further Scientific Conduct Policy

The Critical Patient Journal (RDC) is committed to preventing, identifying, investigating and managing situations of suspicion or confirmation of scientific misconduct, adopting fair, confidential, impartial, proportionate and duly substantiated procedures.

This policy applies to all those involved in the editorial process, including authors, reviewers, editors and other collaborators of the Journal.

The assessment of situations of suspected scientific misconduct will be conducted in accordance with the Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) and with the guidelines, recommendations, Core Practices and flowcharts of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), ensuring respect for the principles of adversarial proceedings, impartiality, confidentiality and integrity of the editorial process.

Examples of scientific misconduct include, among others:

●        Data fabrication – inventing, creating, or reporting non-existent data, results, or observations as if they were true.

●        Falsification – manipulating materials, equipment, procedures, images, data or results in a deceptive way, altering, omitting or misrepresenting relevant information.

●     Duplicate or redundant publication – submitting, publishing, or attempting to publish substantially the same work, or significant portions of it, in more than one journal or editorial platform, without adequate disclosure, legitimate justification, and authorization from the entities involved.

●        Plagiarism, including the misuse of ideas, data, text, images or works of others without proper attribution;

●        Self-plagiarism or undeclared reuse of previously published content;

●        Inadequate fragmentation of research results (salami publication);

●        Inappropriate manipulation of images, figures or other graphic elements;

●        Improper attribution of authorship or unjustified exclusion of authors who meet the authorship criteria adopted by the Journal;

●        Deliberate omission of conflicts of interest or relevant funding sources;

●        Simultaneous submission of the same manuscript to more than one journal, without the knowledge and authorization of the entities involved;

●        Fraudulent peer review, including the use of false identities or fraudulent suggestion of reviewers;

●        Manipulation of citations with the aim of artificially influencing bibliometric indicators or favoring private interests;

●        Use of artificial intelligence tools in violation of the Journal's editorial policy;

●        Any other conduct that could compromise the integrity, reliability or credibility of the published research.

Whenever there are substantiated indications of scientific misconduct, the RDC may request clarifications, original data, research protocols, complementary documentation or any other elements considered necessary for the proper assessment of the case.

Depending on the nature, seriousness and confirmation of the irregularity, the following measures may be adopted, separately or cumulatively:

●        Formal request for clarification;

●        Request for corrections or rectifications;

●        Temporary suspension of the editorial process;

●        Rejection of the manuscript;

●        Posting corrections, expressions of concern, or retractions;

●        Retraction of articles already published;

●        Notification of the authors' affiliation institutions, funding entities or other competent entities, whenever applicable;

●        Adoption of any other measures deemed necessary to safeguard the integrity of the scientific record.

All decisions will be taken in a manner proportionate to the seriousness of the situation, after careful assessment of the facts and available evidence.

The RDC reserves the right to adopt any additional measures it deems necessary to protect the integrity of the scientific record, the credibility of the published research and the confidence of the scientific community in the editorial process.