Authors of a manuscript must present original research with an accurate account of the work performed, together with an objective discussion of its significance. Authors are responsible for the truthfulness and accuracy of their data, and the underlying data must be accurately represented in the manuscript. Upon request, authors must provide the relevant documentation (raw data, samples, records, etc.) so that its validity can be verified. After publication, research data must be retained by the authors in accordance with the policies of their organization.

A manuscript must contain sufficient detail and references to allow readers to replicate the work, if necessary. Fraudulent or deliberately inaccurate statements or data constitute unethical scientific behavior and may lead to rejection of a manuscript or retraction of a published article. Authors must also ensure that their work is entirely original. If data, statements or derivations from other published work are reproduced, they must be properly cited or referenced in accordance with applicable plagiarism laws. Excessive and inappropriate self-citation, text recycling, or coordinated efforts among several authors for collective self-citation are strongly discouraged. Plagiarism in all its forms is unethical and unacceptable.

Authors must ensure that the submitted manuscript reports original work and that its content has not been published elsewhere (in part or in full) in any form or language, unless the work is an expansion of earlier work that is properly cited. A single study must not be improperly split into several not fully separable parts for scientific reporting, with the aim of multiple submissions. Simultaneous submission of a manuscript to more than one journal, or submission of an already published article to another journal, is considered unethical behavior.

If authors use their own previously published work or work under review, they must acknowledge and properly cite it, and clearly identify the unique contributions of the submitted manuscript compared with the earlier work. Authors must also ensure that any reuse complies with copyright policies. The journal will handle cases of text recycling according to COPE guidelines (COPE Council. Handling concurrent and duplicate submissions).

If a similar or identical manuscript is later found published elsewhere in any form, the publisher (Editora Alumni IN) remains free to report it or lodge a complaint with the relevant publishers and institutions to which the author(s) belong.

Author names must be listed in the manuscript in order of their contributions, and all authors take responsibility for their own contributions. Authorship must be limited to those who:

1. Made a significant contribution to the conception or design of the work; or to the acquisition, analysis or interpretation of data; or to the creation of new software/models used in the work; or drafted the work or substantially revised it;
2. Approved the submitted version (and any substantially modified version involving the author's contribution to the study);
3. Agreed to be personally accountable for their own contributions and to ensure that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated, resolved and documented in the literature (COPE Discussion Document: Authorship).

Everyone who made substantial contributions must be listed as a co-author. Those who took part in certain substantive aspects of the manuscript (for example, language editing) must be acknowledged in the Acknowledgements section.

For transparency, authors must include an Author Contribution Statement following the CRediT framework (Contributor Roles Taxonomy), describing individual contributions such as: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Software, Supervision, Validation, Writing – original draft and Writing – review & editing.

The corresponding/submitting author is responsible for including the contributions of all authors in the manuscript, before the References section, at the time of submission.

Authors must carefully consider the list and order of authors before submitting and provide a definitive list at original submission. Requests to add, remove or reorder author names, in exceptional circumstances, must be made before acceptance of the manuscript for publication. Such requests must include specific reason(s) and written confirmation from all authors (original and proposed) that they agree with the change without any conflict of interest. The Editor-in-Chief's decision on the matter is final and binding. After publication, no change to the list or order of authors is permitted.

The corresponding author must ensure that: (a) all co-authors agreed to the full content of the manuscript, including the author list and contribution statements; (b) there is no conflict of interest; (c) the submission meets all policies established by the journal; and (d) all authors agreed to its submission for publication.

The journal does not support any unethical practice that attributes authorship credit improperly. Authorship misconduct includes: ghost authorship (excluding significant contributors), gift authorship (granting authorship to those who made no contribution), substitution authorship (replacing legitimate authors with others), coercive authorship (forced inclusion based on power relations) and artificial collaboration (fabricating collaborations to inflate apparent credibility).

If authorship is questioned, the peer review process will be suspended and an appropriate investigation conducted to identify any ghost, gift or guest authorship. Based on the findings, authors will be instructed to correct the author list (COPE Flowcharts – Ghost, guest, or gift authorship).

Authors are obliged to correct any incorrect report as soon as they discover it, during manuscript processing or after publication. In that case, the author(s) must write immediately to the Editor-in-Chief, explaining how the error affects the manuscript. The decision on how to correct it (erratum, corrigendum or retraction) will depend on the nature of the error.

Minor corrections (spelling or grammatical errors) that do not change the understanding of the content will not be corrected after publication. An erratum will be published when errors in the published article that went unnoticed during editing and layout are recognized. A corrigendum will be published when authors realize that errors in the published article may affect the validity or accuracy of the scientific content.

If a reader detects a genuine error in a published article, they may send a letter to the Editor-in-Chief. The author, editor and reviewer will then assess the validity of the error, and appropriate corrigenda may be published for genuine errors.

Post-publication discussions may be submitted as Letters to the Editor within 3 months of publication, scientifically justifying the need for the discussion. Letters must not exceed 3 double-spaced manuscript pages, including references, figures, tables and captions. The title must begin with “Discussion of” followed by the title and DOI of the original article. The original authors will be invited to write a reply. The Editorial Board may consider a post-publication discussion if, after peer review, it is established to be constructive and useful to the community.

When submitting a manuscript, all authors and co-authors must disclose any potential conflict of interest (for example, employment, consulting fees, funding organization policy, research contract, patent license, advisory affiliations, etc.), either by stating that “No conflict of interest exists” or by describing the nature of any potential conflict.

Authors are responsible for obtaining any permissions needed to include images or artwork in their articles for which they do not hold copyright. The source(s) of financial support for the reported research must also be disclosed in the manuscript.

Open access and licensing

This is a fully open access journal. All articles are published under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0). Authors retain copyright and grant the journal the right of first publication.

By submitting a manuscript, authors will send the “Publication Agreement Form”, certifying the following:

1. Each author participated sufficiently in one or more activities of the reported research and is responsible for them. Each author's contribution is stated in the manuscript. All authors have seen and agreed to the submitted version.
2. The content of the manuscript has not been published in any form, in part or in full, anywhere to date. The authors have not submitted and will not submit the same work elsewhere until a decision is communicated.
3. The data and results in the manuscript come from original research work.
4. The author(s) have ensured that the entire content of the manuscript does not violate regulations on plagiarism, text recycling or self-plagiarism.
5. The author(s) take full responsibility for the data, statements and opinions contained in the manuscript. The publisher (Editora Alumni IN) is fully exempt from such responsibilities.
6. Due mention has been made of the organization(s) where the research was conducted, and the funding obtained is duly acknowledged.
7. There is no conflict of interest in the manuscript.
8. The authors have included information on any preprint submission and agree to update the preprint record with a DOI and URL link to the Version of Record, if accepted.
9. If the reported research involved human or animal subjects, the work was carried out in compliance with applicable laws and ethics. Written informed consent from human subjects was obtained and is recorded.
10. The authors comply with the highest standards of all ethical policies of the journal.
11. Revisions in response to reviewer/editor comments will be made in a timely manner. The authors agree to make available, if requested, the data on which the manuscript is based.
12. Except in extraordinary circumstances, the manuscript will not be withdrawn during review/processing. Written permission from the Editor-in-Chief will be required for withdrawal.

According to COPE, “ethical oversight should include, but is not limited to, policies on consent to publication, publication on vulnerable populations, ethical conduct of research using animals, ethical conduct of research using human subjects, handling confidential data and ethical business/marketing practices” (COPE Ethics Toolkit).

Authors must ensure that there has been no violation of the Ethical Oversight Policy. If the research involved human or animal subjects, authors confirm that the work was carried out in compliance with applicable laws and ethics, and that written informed consent from human subjects was obtained and is recorded or described in the article.

Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools, such as ChatGPT or other Large Language Models (LLMs), cannot be considered or listed as authors of an article, as these tools cannot take responsibility for the work, sign copyright or license agreements, or declare the presence or absence of conflicts.

The use of generative AI (GenAI) and AI-assisted technologies in the writing process must be carried out under human oversight and control. Authors who use GenAI technologies in writing a manuscript, producing images or graphic elements, or collecting and analyzing data must be transparent in disclosing, in the Materials and Methods section (or in the Declarations section), how the AI tool was used and which tool was employed.

Authors are fully responsible for the content of their manuscript, including the parts produced by an AI tool, and are therefore accountable for any breach of publication ethics (COPE Position Statement on AI).

The author(s) must not engage in any form of research misconduct, including but not limited to: self-plagiarism or text recycling; plagiarized authorship; data or image manipulation/fabrication; copyright violations or use of third-party material without proper permission; citation manipulation; duplicate submission or publication; false representation of affiliations; manipulation of peer review; omission of competing interests; and unethical research practices.

Manuscripts containing citations intended solely to artificially inflate the citation count of a particular author or journal constitute misconduct. Likewise, manuscripts with fabricated or falsified experimental results constitute misconduct. Any detected fabrication, data falsification or image manipulation that violates ethical guidelines will be subject to investigation and penalties.

The journal treats all forms of misconduct seriously and will take all necessary measures, in accordance with COPE guidelines (COPE Flowcharts – Systematic manipulation of the publication process), to protect the integrity of the scientific record.

Upon discovering research misconduct at any stage, from submission to post-publication, the Editor-in-Chief, in consultation with the responsible Editor, has full authority to reject the article or retract the publication. In cases of repeated violations, the Editor-in-Chief reserves the right to notify the author's institution(s). The publisher may also deactivate the account of the author(s) involved for a period of one to three years.

Submitted version / Author Original Manuscript (AOM)

The AOM may be deposited at any time on the author's personal website, in an institutional repository or on non-profit preprint servers linked to subject areas. However, the deposited version must not be updated to resemble the final version of record. Posting on a preprint server before submission is not considered duplicate publication and will not prejudice consideration of the work.

Accepted Manuscript (AM)

The author may deposit the Accepted Manuscript on their personal website at any time after publication. Embargo periods (typically 12 months) may apply to institutional or subject repositories. After publication, it must be linked to the published version with the following text:

Final Version of Record

As an open access journal under the CC BY 4.0 license, authors are authorized to freely share the final published PDF, with due attribution. Authors may deposit the published version on personal websites, institutional repositories and academic networks. The following statement must be included:

Double-blind peer review

The journal adopts a double-blind peer review process. Authors have no access to the identity of reviewers, and vice versa. All research manuscripts are evaluated by at least two external, independent reviewers.

The evaluation of articles submitted to the journal involves two sequential stages: preliminary evaluation (desk review) and peer review.

In the preliminary evaluation, editors analyze the manuscripts received (without any author identification) to assess their fit with the journal's scope, the adequacy of the methodological procedures applied and compliance with editorial guidelines. When a submitted work does not meet the journal's policies, authors are informed of the decision within thirty days of the submission date.

Articles that pass the preliminary evaluation are forwarded to two reviewers who are professors and researchers linked to stricto sensu graduate programs at national or international higher-education institutions. Reviewers are selected based on expertise in the relevant area, considering the journal's interdisciplinary scope and the need for appropriate, inclusive and diverse representation.

Possible outcomes

After evaluation, the Editor will make one of the following decisions:

• Accepted — the manuscript is accepted for publication as submitted;
• Minor Revisions — the manuscript requires small corrections before acceptance;
• Major Revisions — the manuscript requires substantial corrections and will be re-evaluated;
• Rejected — the manuscript does not meet the journal's requirements.

After the requested adjustments have been made and verified by reviewers and editors, articles undergo copyediting, proofreading and layout, in accordance with the editorial standards adopted by the journal.

Editorial decision-making process

A recommendation decision on a manuscript by an Editor is normally reached through internal consultations with the responsible Editorial Team. The recommendation is forwarded to the Editor-in-Chief for final decision. After technical editing at the Editor-in-Chief's desk, the corresponding author has the opportunity to incorporate the necessary improvements. The Editor-in-Chief carries out the necessary technical consultations with the Editor or a technical expert, as deemed appropriate, before reaching the final decision on acceptance.

In evaluating a manuscript for publication, besides the standard criteria on rigor, due weight is given to other attributes, such as the length and quality of presentation, the reliability and authenticity of the data and the contribution to new knowledge.

Potential reviewers must provide accurate personal and professional information about their expertise, including verifiable contact details. Upon receiving an invitation to review, a response (of availability or not) must be sent within a reasonable time. A review should be accepted only if the reviewer is qualified to judge the manuscript in question and able to return the report within the proposed or mutually agreed deadline.

Impersonating another individual during the review process is considered serious misconduct (COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers).

All manuscripts received for review are treated as confidential documents. Reviewers must not share the review or information about the manuscript with anyone, nor contact the author(s) directly. Reviews must be conducted objectively, with opinions expressed through supporting arguments and references, as needed.

A reviewer must bring to the attention of the Editorial Board any potential ethical issues in a manuscript, including any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under review and any other published document of which the reviewer has personal knowledge.

Reviewers who have accepted review assignments are normally expected to submit their comments within three weeks of receiving the manuscript, or within a mutually agreed period.

Reviewers must declare to the Editorial Board any potential competing interests and must decline to review a manuscript with which they believe they have competing interests resulting from competitive, collaborative or other relationships with any of the authors, companies or institutions linked to the manuscript.

Unpublished content disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used by a reviewer in any way without the written consent of the author(s). Information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Personal criticism of the author(s) is inappropriate and must be avoided.

AI tools cannot act as reviewers or as editors responsible for decisions. Any use of AI tools in peer review (for example, for data assessment or language editing) must be clearly disclosed to authors in the review form (reviewers) or the decision letter (editors).

Editorial governance and transparency

The journal operates with the following editorial roles:

• Editor-in-Chief — overall responsibility for scientific content and editorial decisions
• Executive Editor — manages editorial operations and workflow coordination
• International Associate Editors — conduct manuscript evaluation and coordinate peer review
• Scientific Board / Editorial Board — provides scientific oversight and quality assurance

All editorial members and roles are publicly identified on the Editorial Team page, including names, institutional affiliations and countries.

Scientific Board

Complete and up-to-date information, with profile links, is available on the Editorial Team page.

All editorial board members must declare potential conflicts of interest, including concurrent editorships and editorial board memberships, upon joining the editorial team (COPE guidelines: Editorial board participation).

An Editor must ensure that the peer review process is impartial, timely and of high technical quality, and must maintain high technical standards for manuscripts recommended for publication. All Editors must ensure the integrity of the double-blind policy by not revealing the identity of authors to reviewers and vice versa. An Editor also protects the confidentiality of all material submitted to the journal and of all external communications.

An Editor must give due consideration to all disclosures of potential conflicts of interest and to self-citation suggestions made by reviewers.

Submissions by Editors or Editorial Board members

To preserve editorial independence and credibility, manuscripts authored by members of the editorial team are subject to special procedures. As a general rule, manuscripts authored by editors should be avoided. In exceptional and duly justified cases:

• The manuscript will be handled by an independent guest editor with no conflict of interest;
• The entire editorial process will follow a rigorous double-blind peer review procedure;
• The editorial independence of reviewers and authors will be preserved;
• A transparency note will be included in the published issue or editorial, explaining the exceptional handling of the manuscript.

These procedures are aligned with the ANPAD Manual of Good Practices in Scientific Publishing and COPE's international recommendations on handling conflicts of interest.

The author(s) must ensure that they have reported original work, with their own data and statements. If the work, data and words of others have been used, they must be properly cited or referenced. A statement that is a previously reported observation, derivation or argument must be accompanied by the relevant citation. Plagiarism in all its forms is unethical and unacceptable.

A manuscript submitted to the journal undergoes a plagiarism check by the Editorial Board using plagiarism-detection software — Crossref Similarity Check, powered by iThenticate. If similarity is found in the manuscript, the author is instructed to revise it appropriately. A manuscript with a high level of similarity is rejected.

When plagiarism is detected, the process described in the relevant COPE guidelines/flowcharts follows (COPE – Plagiarism in a submitted manuscript & COPE – Redundant (duplicate) publication).

In cases of substantial plagiarism, the publisher may inform the head of the organization to which the author(s) are affiliated for appropriate measures. The publisher may also deactivate the account of the author(s) involved for a period of one to three years.

The journal adopts rigorous procedures to identify, prevent and manage conflicts of interest at all stages of the editorial and publishing process, in accordance with international best practices and Brazilian standards of scientific integrity.

Disclosure by authors

All authors and co-authors must disclose any potential conflict of interest at the time of manuscript submission. Conflicts may include, but are not limited to: employment or institutional affiliation that may influence the research; consulting fees, honoraria or financial support; research funding contracts or sponsorships; patent applications, licenses or intellectual property interests; membership of advisory boards or governance roles; institutional or organizational policies that may influence the results or interpretation of the study.

Authors must explicitly state: “The authors declare no conflict of interest”; or provide a clear description of any existing or potential conflict. This statement will be published in the final version of the article.

Editorial assignment and conflict management

Manuscripts are assigned to editors and reviewers with the aim of minimizing potential conflicts. The journal avoids assigning manuscripts to editors or reviewers who are: current institutional colleagues; recent institutional or professional collaborators; recent co-authors; former or current doctoral advisees or advisors; or who have personal, financial or institutional relationships that could compromise impartiality.

If, after assignment, an editor or reviewer identifies a potential conflict not previously declared, they must immediately inform the Editor-in-Chief and recuse themselves. Where all available editors have some level of conflict, the manuscript will be assigned to the editor with the lowest potential conflict, ensuring transparency and editorial independence.

Commitment to transparency

The journal is committed to transparency, impartiality and ethical rigor. All declared conflicts of interest are treated confidentially and managed in accordance with COPE guidelines and Brazilian best practices in scientific publishing.

The journal adopts an open access publishing model and respects authors' intellectual property rights. Upon acceptance, authors grant the journal the right of first publication. The published work is simultaneously licensed under CC BY 4.0.

This license allows any user to: share (copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format) and adapt (remix, transform and build upon the material for any purpose, including commercial), provided appropriate credit is given to the original author(s) and the source is properly cited.

Before publication, all authors must sign a Publication Authorization Form, sent electronically by the editorial office, confirming the originality of the work, the transfer of the right of first publication and agreement with the licensing terms adopted.

Open access policy

The journal provides immediate and unrestricted open access to all published content, based on the principle that making scientific research freely available contributes to global knowledge exchange. There is no embargo period. Submission and acceptance dates are disclosed in each published article.

Repository and self-archiving policy

Authors are authorized and encouraged to disseminate their work widely. The journal permits the deposit of all versions of manuscripts in institutional, subject or personal repositories, including: Preprint (submitted version), Author Accepted Manuscript (postprint) and Published Version of Record (final published article). No embargo period applies to self-archiving.

The journal grants third parties the right to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, link and use the full texts of articles, provided due attribution is given in accordance with the CC BY 4.0 license.

The journal is fully committed to removing financial barriers to scientific publishing. Authors are never required to pay for submission, peer review, copyediting, layout, digital archiving or online hosting. All costs associated with the journal's operation are borne by the publisher, Editora Alumni IN.

This policy applies equally to all authors, regardless of geographic location, institutional affiliation or funding status. There are no hidden charges, surcharges for fast-track review or premium publishing services.

The journal offers no fee waivers or discounts because there are no fees. Authors should be wary of any communication requesting payment on behalf of the journal; any such request is fraudulent and must be immediately reported to the Editorial Office.

The journal encourages authors to make research data publicly available whenever possible, in accordance with the FAIR principles (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, Reusable). Authors must include a Data Availability Statement indicating where the data can be accessed or explaining any restrictions.

Where data cannot be shared due to ethical, legal or commercial restrictions, authors must explain these limitations. Upon reasonable request and where permitted, authors must provide data to editors or reviewers for verification purposes.

Authors are encouraged to archive additional data and research information supporting the results in an appropriate public repository, within the legal and ethical framework, and to include a data availability statement with a link to the repository.

Open Science badges

This journal supports the initiative promoted by the Center for Open Science (COS) and offers authors the opportunity to request one or more of the three badges that identify open science practices:

• Open Data badge — awarded when digitally shareable data necessary to reproduce the reported results are publicly available;
• Open Materials badge — earned by making publicly available the components of the research methodology needed to reproduce the reported procedure and analysis;
• Preregistration badge — earned by having a preregistered design and analysis plan.

To apply, authors must complete the open practices disclosure form and return it to the editorial team. The editorial team will determine whether the submission meets the eligibility criteria. An author may request one or all three badges.

A “preprint” is an early version of a manuscript created before the version accepted for publication. Depositing a preprint on any recognized platform will not be considered prior publication (COPE Discussion Document: Preprints).

Authors are required to include details of a preprint deposit, including the DOI or other persistent identifier, when submitting the manuscript. Authors must not improve the preprint so that it more closely resembles or replaces the final version.

After acceptance, the corresponding author must agree to the terms of the respective publication agreement. Authors are required to update the preprint to acknowledge acceptance:

After publication of the final version, the preprint must be immediately linked to the Version of Record, and the following text must be added:

To ensure the permanence, integrity and long-term accessibility of all published content, the journal adopts a comprehensive digital preservation and archiving policy, aligned with international standards of scholarly communication.

Cloud backup and redundancy

The journal maintains cloud backup systems that ensure redundancy, data integrity and rapid restoration capability. Periodic automatic backups are performed in secure cloud environments to safeguard all published content, metadata and supplementary materials.

Distributed preservation strategy

The journal adopts distributed digital preservation strategies based on internationally recognized archiving principles. These practices include hosting on secure servers, mirrored backups and repository-ready metadata structures compatible with indexing systems and digital libraries. The policy ensures that all published articles, issues and supplementary materials remain available in perpetuity.

The journal follows the COPE Retraction Guidelines to maintain the integrity of the scientific record. The following editorial actions may be taken when problems are identified in published articles:

Retracted articles are not removed from the published record. A retraction notice, clearly linked to the retracted article, will be published with an explanation of the reason(s) for retraction. The retracted article will be clearly identified as retracted in all online versions.

Retraction notices will be freely available to all readers, indexed and linked to the original article, to ensure that the scientific record is corrected and transparent.

The Editorial Board discourages the withdrawal of manuscripts submitted to the journal, as it wastes the productive time and efficiency of editors, reviewers and others involved in processing the manuscript. Authors must carefully assess fit with the journal's requirements and policies before submitting.

A formal written request to the Editor-in-Chief, made by the corresponding author, clearly stating the reasons for withdrawal, is required. The request must be signed by all authors listed in the manuscript.

If a withdrawal request is received at any time after completion of the review process and/or communication of acceptance, the Editorial Board may bar the author(s) from submitting a new manuscript for a maximum period of three years. The withdrawn article is archived in the journal's database and is not subject to any further action.

The editorial content published by the journal is not compromised by commercial or financial interests, nor by any agreements with advertising clients or sponsors. The publisher (Editora Alumni IN) and the Editorial Board do not accept any consideration and do not run advertising, commercial content or sponsored articles. Authors of scientific articles may not link advertisements through keywords.

Editorial decisions are made independently of any commercial considerations. No advertising revenue influences the selection, peer review or publication of articles.

The journal adopts transparent procedures to receive, assess and resolve complaints and appeals related to editorial processes, publication ethics and scientific integrity. All cases are handled seriously, impartially and confidentially.

Scope of complaints

The Editorial Board considers complaints related to, but not limited to: authorship disputes; plagiarism or self-plagiarism; duplicate or simultaneous submissions/publications; misappropriation or misuse of research data; errors, inconsistencies or suspected fraud in research; violations of ethical standards; undisclosed conflicts of interest; reviewer bias or unethical interference; excessive delays in editorial processing; and allegations of intellectual property infringement.

Submitting complaints and appeals

Complaints and appeals must be formally submitted to the editorial office or directly to the Editor-in-Chief, preferably in writing, via the journal's official e-mail. The submission must include: clear identification of the complainant; a detailed description of the issue; and supporting documentation or evidence, where available. Anonymous or unfounded complaints may not be considered.

Appeals against editorial decisions

Authors may appeal an editorial decision, including rejection of the manuscript. The Editor-in-Chief and/or the responsible Editor will assess the authors' justification, the reviewers' reports and compliance with the journal's policies. Based on this assessment, the journal may: uphold the original decision; reconsider the manuscript; request an additional independent review; or reject the appeal. Decisions resulting from the appeal process are final.

Investigation of ethical complaints

Complaints involving publication ethics, intellectual property infringement, research misconduct or unlawful content will be investigated by the Editor-in-Chief in consultation with the Editorial Board. The investigation may include: requesting clarification from the parties involved; consulting independent reviewers or experts; temporarily suspending editorial processing; and issuing corrections, expressions of concern or retractions, when appropriate.

All allegations of misconduct are assessed in accordance with COPE guidelines and applicable Brazilian law on copyright and academic integrity.

Legal jurisdiction

All legal matters related to the journal's publications and editorial processes are governed by Brazilian law. Any disputes that cannot be resolved administratively will be submitted to the jurisdiction of the competent courts in Brazil.

Publication model: the Journal of Sustainable Institutional Management is published in a continuous publication model, with a single annual volume.

Early Access: this journal also adopts advance publication in Early Access.

Continuous publication

Articles are published individually as soon as they complete peer review, editorial processing and production, without waiting for the issue to close. This model ensures that accepted articles are made available to the scientific community as quickly as possible, significantly reducing the time between acceptance and publication. Each article receives a Digital Object Identifier (DOI) at the time of publication, making it immediately citable and traceable.

Early Access

To disseminate works accepted for publication before the standard production and issue-release cycles, the journal has implemented the “Early Access” option. Articles accepted for publication but still scheduled for release in a future issue are displayed on a specific “Early Access” page, so they can be read and cited before their scheduled release in a specific issue.

Articles published in Early Access are final, full-text, peer-reviewed and copyedited articles, made available to the public as soon as they are completed, published online before being assigned to a journal volume and issue.

• They are considered complete and final — once published online, they are considered fully published and no further changes can be made by the authors;
• If there is an error in an article published in Early Access, it would need to be corrected through an erratum;
• They are fully citable, as they receive a DOI, which allows them to be cited and tracked;
• After the article is assigned to an issue, the DOI remains the same and can continue to be used to cite the article.

Editorial workflow

The journal's editorial process follows these steps:

Estimated editorial timelines

In accordance with the Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing, the journal discloses its revenue sources and business model.

The Journal of Sustainable Institutional Management operates as a Diamond Open Access journal. All operating costs — including hosting, digital preservation, editorial management, copyediting, layout and DOI registration — are fully funded by the publisher, Editora Alumni IN. The journal charges no article processing charges (APCs), submission fees or any other fees from authors, readers or institutions.

The journal does not accept advertising, sponsorships or any form of commercial revenue that could influence editorial decisions or the integrity of published content. The publisher's revenue sources may include institutional support, voluntary partnerships and other publishing activities of Editora Alumni IN, entirely separate from editorial decision-making.

This financial model ensures that editorial independence is fully preserved and that no financial consideration influences the acceptance, rejection or publication of scientific work.

For questions regarding editorial policies, publication ethics or complaints, contact the Editor-in-Chief through the journal's official contact channels.