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

In the preliminary evaluation, editors examine the submissions received (without any author identification) to assess their fit with the journal's scope, the adequacy of the methodological procedures applied and compliance with the 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 sent to two reviewers who are professors and researchers affiliated with stricto sensu graduate programs at national or international educational institutions. Reviewers are selected on the basis of expertise in the relevant field, considering the journal's interdisciplinary scope and the need for appropriate, inclusive and diverse representation.

Possible Outcomes

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

• Accepted — the manuscript is accepted for publication as submitted;
• Minor Revisions — the manuscript requires minor 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 typesetting, in accordance with the editorial standards adopted by the journal.

Editorial Decision-Making Process

A recommendation 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 the 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, in addition to considering the standard criteria of rigor, due weight is given to other attributes, such as the scope and quality of the presentation, the reliability and authenticity of the data, and the contribution to new knowledge.

Prospective reviewers should provide accurate personal and professional information about their expertise, including verifiable contact information. Upon receiving an invitation to review, a response (whether available or not) should be sent within a reasonable time. A reviewer should agree to undertake the review only if 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 should be conducted objectively, with opinions expressed through supporting arguments and references, as appropriate.

A reviewer should 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 one month of receiving the manuscript, or within a mutually agreed deadline.

Reviewers must disclose 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 should 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 the authors in the review form (reviewers) or in the decision letter (editors).

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

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 review 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 in the editorial, explaining the exceptional handling of the manuscript.

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 an observation, derivation or argument previously reported must be accompanied by the relevant citation. Plagiarism, in all its forms, constitutes unethical behavior and is 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 is followed (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 so that appropriate measures can be taken. The publisher may also deactivate the account(s) 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 publication 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 could 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 could influence the results or interpretation of the study.

Authors must state explicitly: "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 students or supervisors; 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. In situations in which all available editors have some level of conflict, the manuscript will be assigned to the editor with the least potential conflict, ensuring transparency and editorial independence.

Commitment to Transparency

The journal is committed to maintaining 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 scholarly publishing.

The journal adopts an open access publishing model and respects the intellectual property rights of authors. 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 that appropriate credit is given to the original author(s) and the source is duly 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 the global exchange of knowledge. 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 is applied to self-archiving.

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

Because the charge is made only after the acceptance decision, payment of the APC does not influence peer review or the editorial decision, which are based exclusively on the scientific merit of the manuscript and the reviewers' reports. There is no charge for submission, peer review, page charges or color charges.

Authors who act as reviewers for the journal may receive discounts, in accordance with the journal's editorial policies. Current amounts and conditions are published on the Author Fees page.

Authors should be wary of any charge made before the acceptance of the manuscript or through unofficial channels; any such request made on behalf of the journal must be reported immediately 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 should include a Data Availability Statement indicating where the data can be accessed or explaining any restrictions.

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

Authors are encouraged to archive additional data and research information that support the findings 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 apply for one or more of the three badges that identify open science practices:

• Open Data Badge — awarded when the digitally shareable data necessary to reproduce the reported results are publicly available;
• Open Materials Badge — earned by publicly sharing the components of the research methodology needed to reproduce the reported procedure and analysis;
• Preregistered 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 criteria for eligibility. An author may apply for 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 enhance the preprint in a way that makes it more closely resemble the final version or replace it.

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:

Erratum

An erratum is published when errors introduced during the editorial or production process (for example, in figures, tables or typesetting) have caused incorrect understanding of the article and went unnoticed during editing.

Corrigendum

A corrigendum is published when authors realize that errors in the published article may affect the validity of the scientific content or its accuracy.

Expression of Concern

An expression of concern may be issued when there is inconclusive evidence of research or publication misconduct, when an investigation into alleged misconduct is under way but a judgment will not be available for a considerable time, or when there are concerns that the findings may be unreliable but the author's institution will not investigate the case.

Retraction

Retractions are issued if there is clear evidence that the reported findings are scientifically unreliable (due to serious error or misconduct, including fabrication, falsification or plagiarism beyond an acceptable threshold), if the findings have previously been published elsewhere without proper referencing or permission, if the article constitutes plagiarism, or if the research reports unethical practices. Any decision on retraction will be made by the Editorial Board.

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 the retraction. The retracted article will be clearly identified as retracted in all online versions.

Retraction notices will be freely available to all readers and will be indexed and linked to the original article, in order 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 should carefully assess the fit with the journal's requirements and policies before submitting.

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

If a withdrawal request is received at any time after the review process has been completed and/or acceptance has been communicated, 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, or 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 carry 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 relating 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 email. The submission must include: clear identification of the complainant; a detailed description of the matter; 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 the rejection of a manuscript. The Editor-in-Chief and/or the responsible Editor will evaluate the authors' justification, the reviewers' reports and compliance with the journal's policies. Based on this evaluation, 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; temporary suspension of editorial processing; and issuing corrections, expressions of concern or retractions, where appropriate.

All allegations of misconduct are assessed in accordance with COPE guidelines and the applicable Brazilian legislation 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.

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

In order to disseminate works accepted for publication ahead of the standard production and issue release cycles, the Journal of Law and Corruption Review has implemented the "Early Access" option. Articles accepted for publication but still scheduled for release in a future issue are displayed on a dedicated "Early Access" page, so that 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 volume and issue of the journal.

Editorial Workflow

The editorial process of the Journal of Law and Corruption Review follows these stages:

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 Law and Corruption Review is an open access journal. Its operating costs — including hosting, digital preservation, editorial management, copyediting, typesetting and DOI registration — are funded by the publisher, Editora Alumni IN, and by the article processing charge (APC) paid by the authors of accepted manuscripts, as described in Section 8. The journal does not charge submission or evaluation fees, nor does it charge readers or institutions for access to content.

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

Because the APC is charged only after acceptance, this financial model preserves editorial independence: no financial consideration influences the evaluation, acceptance or rejection of scientific work.