---

1. Ethics and Responsibilities of Authors

1.1 Responsibilities of Authors

Authors of a manuscript should present original research with an accurate account of the work performed along with an objective discussion of its significance. Authors are responsible for the truth and accuracy of their data. Underlying data should be represented accurately in the manuscript. Upon request, the authors are required to send relevant documentation (in the form of raw data, samples, records, data-collection instruments, etc.) for verification of their validity. Research data after publication should be retained by the authors as per the policies of the institution to which they belong.

A manuscript should contain sufficient details and references to permit the readers to understand or replicate the methodological path of the work, if required. Fraudulent or deliberately inaccurate statements or data constitute unethical scientific behaviour and may lead to rejection of a manuscript or retraction of a published article. The authors should also ensure that they have written entirely original work. In case data, statements, or derivations of another published work have been reproduced, they must be appropriately cited or quoted, satisfying existing copyright and plagiarism laws. Excessive and inappropriate self-citations, text recycling, or coordinated efforts among several authors to collectively self-cite are strongly discouraged. Plagiarism in all its forms constitutes unethical behaviour and is unacceptable.

Articles submitted to RDD must be unpublished. The author(s) should ensure that a submitted manuscript reports an original work and that its contents have not been published elsewhere (partially or in full) in any form or language, unless the reported work concerns an expansion of a previous work that is duly cited. A single study should not be unduly split up into several parts that are not completely separable for scientific reporting for the purpose of multiple submissions. Concurrent submission of one manuscript to more than one journal, or submitting an already published paper to another journal, is considered unethical behaviour.

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

If a similar or the same manuscript is later found to have been published elsewhere in any form, the Centro Universitário Adventista de São Paulo (Unasp), as the institution responsible for the journal, shall remain free to report or lodge a complaint to the relevant publisher(s) and institution(s) to which the author(s) belong.

1.2 Authorship & Author Contributions

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

1. Made significant contribution to the conception or design of the work; or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data; or have drafted the work or substantively revised it;
2. Approved the submitted version (and any substantially modified version that involves the author's contribution to the study);
3. Agreed to be personally accountable for their own contributions and for ensuring 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).

All those who have made substantial contributions should be listed as co-authors. Those who have participated in certain aspects of the manuscript (e.g., language editing or technical support) should be recognised under the Acknowledgement Section.

For transparency, authors should include an Author Contribution Statement following the CRediT (Contributor Roles Taxonomy) framework, outlining individual contributions such as: Conceptualisation, Data curation, Formal analysis, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, 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. Given the double-blind review, the statement must be placed in a separate file or dedicated field so that anonymity is preserved during evaluation.

Authors should carefully consider the list and order of authors before submitting their manuscript and provide a definitive list at the time of the original submission. Requests for any addition, deletion, or rearrangement of author names in the authorship list under exceptional circumstances should be made before the manuscript is accepted for publication. Such requests should 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 decision of the Editorial Team on the matter would be final. Post-publication, no change in the list or order of authors is allowed.

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

The journal does not support any unethical practice that inappropriately attributes authorship credits. Authorship misconduct includes: Ghost authorship (exclusion of significant contributors), Gift authorship (giving authorship to someone who has not made contributions), Substitution authorship (replacement of rightful authors with others), Coercive authorship (forcing inclusion based on power dynamics or academic hierarchy), and Artificial collaboration (fabricating collaborations to increase apparent credibility).

If suspicion is raised about authorship, the peer review process shall be suspended and a relevant investigation will be conducted to identify any guest, ghost, or gift authorship. Based on the findings, authors shall be advised to correct the authorship list (COPE Flowcharts — Ghost, guest, or gift authorship).

1.3 Pre- and Post-publication Corrections

Authors have an obligation to correct any misreporting once they discover it during the processing of the manuscript or post-publication. In such a case, author(s) should immediately write to the Editorial Team and explain in what way the error is impacting the manuscript. A decision on how to correct the manuscript (erratum, corrigendum, or retraction) will depend on the nature of the error, in accordance with the journal's Retraction Policy.

Minor corrections (spelling or grammatical errors) that do not alter the understanding of the content will not be corrected after publication. An erratum will be published when mistakes are recognised in the published article which remained unnoticed during editing and layout. A corrigendum will be published when the authors realise that errors in the published article could affect the validity or accuracy of the scientific content.

If a reader detects a genuine error in a published article, they may send a communication to the Editorial Team. The author, editor, and, where necessary, a reviewer will then assess the validity of the error. Appropriate corrigenda may be published for genuine errors.

1.4 Conflict of Interest & Competing Interests

During submission of a manuscript, all authors and co-authors are required to disclose any potential conflict of interest (e.g., employment, consulting fee, sponsoring organisation policy, research contract, patent licence, advisory affiliations, ties to institutions or programmes evaluated in the study, etc.) either stating that "No conflict of interest exists" or describing the nature of any potential conflict.

Authors are responsible for obtaining any permission necessary to include images or artwork in their articles for which they do not hold copyright. The source(s) of financial support for a reported research work (funding agencies, grants, institutions) should also be disclosed in the manuscript.

1.5 Journal Publishing Agreement

While submitting a manuscript, the authors will sign the Journal Publishing Agreement / Term of Authorization certifying the following:

1. Each author has participated sufficiently in one or more activities of the reported research work and is responsible for them. The contribution of each author has been mentioned in the manuscript. All authors have seen and agreed to the submitted version.
2. The contents of the manuscript have not been published in any form, partially or in full, anywhere to date. The authors have neither submitted nor shall submit the same elsewhere until a decision is communicated.
3. The data and results embodied in the manuscript are from original research work.
4. The author(s) have satisfied themselves that the full contents of the manuscript do not attract plagiarism, text-recycling, or self-plagiarism regulations.
5. The author(s) undertake full responsibility for the data, statements, and opinions contained in the manuscript. Unasp and the Editorial Team are fully absolved of the same.
6. Due mention of the organisation(s) where the research work was undertaken has been made and funding obtained is duly acknowledged.
7. There is no conflict of interest in the manuscript, or any existing conflicts have been duly disclosed.
8. The authors have included information on any pre-print submission and agree to update the pre-print record with a link to the Version of Record, if accepted.
9. In case the reported research involved the use of humans or animals as subjects, such work was carried out in accordance with applicable laws and ethics (including Brazilian National Health Council Resolutions No. 466/2012 and No. 510/2016, where applicable), and the approval of a Research Ethics Committee and informed consents were obtained and are on record.
10. The authors have conformed to the highest standards of all ethical policies of the journal.
11. Revisions as per reviewer/editor comments will be carried out in a time-bound manner. The authors agree that, if requested, they shall make available the data upon which the manuscript is based.
12. Unless an extraordinary situation, the manuscript will not be withdrawn during review/processing. Written permission of the Editorial Team shall be required for withdrawal.

1.6 Ethical Oversight Policy

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

Authors are required to ensure that no violation of the Ethical Oversight Policy has occurred. In case the research involved use of humans or animals as subjects — as is frequent in educational research with students, teachers, and school leaders — the authors confirm that such work was carried out in accordance with applicable laws and ethics, that the Research Ethics Committee (CEP/CONEP) approval number has been provided in the manuscript where required, and that informed consent (and, where applicable, assent of minors) was obtained and is on record. In research involving children and adolescents, authors must protect the identity of participants.

1.7 Authorship and Artificial Intelligence Tools Policy

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

The use of generative AI (GenAI) and AI-assisted technologies in the writing process should be done with human oversight and control. Authors who use GenAI technologies in the writing of a manuscript, production of images or graphical elements, or in the collection and analysis of data, must be transparent in disclosing in the Methodology section (or a Declarations section) how the AI tool was used and which tool was used.

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

1.8 Research Misconduct

Author(s) must not indulge in any form of research misconduct, including but not limited to: self-plagiarism or text recycling; plagiarized authorship; data or image manipulation/fabrication; breaches of copyright or use of third-party material without proper permissions; citation manipulation; duplicate submission or publication; misrepresentation of affiliations; peer review manipulation; failure to disclose competing interests; and unethical research practices.

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

The journal takes all forms of misconduct seriously and will take all necessary action, in accordance with COPE guidelines (COPE Flowcharts — Systematic manipulation of the publication process), to protect the integrity of the scholarly record. Measures may include notification and suspension of publication, as provided in the journal's research-ethics guidelines.

Upon discovery of research misconduct, at any stage from submission to post-publication, the Editors, in consultation with the Scientific Editorial Board where necessary, have full authority to reject the article or retract publication. In cases of repeated breaches, the Editorial Team reserves the right to notify the author's institution(s) and to bar new submissions for a defined period.

1.9 Article Sharing Policy

Submitted Version / Author's Original Manuscript (AOM)

The AOM can be posted at any time on the author's personal website, institutional repository, or not-for-profit subject-based preprint servers. However, the deposited version should not be updated to look like the final version of record. Posting on a preprint server before submission is not considered duplicate publication and will not jeopardize consideration, provided that anonymity is preserved during double-blind review.

Accepted Manuscript (AM)

The author can post the Accepted Manuscript on their personal website, or in institutional or subject repositories, at any point after acceptance, with no embargo period. After publication, it should be linked with the published version with the following text:

Final Version of Record

As an open access journal under CC BY 4.0, authors are permitted to freely share the final published PDF with proper attribution. Authors may post the published version on personal websites, institutional repositories, and scholarly networks. The following statement should appear:

↑ Back to Top

---

2. Peer Review Process

The evaluation of articles submitted to the journal involves two sequential steps: desk review and peer review. A public description of the process is available on the Peer Review page.

In the desk review, editors analyse the articles received (without any identification of authors) to assess their relevance to the scope of the journal, their potential to contribute significantly to knowledge in the field, originality, suitability of the submission format, and compliance with the journal's guidelines. When necessary, editors involve members of the Scientific Editorial Board. When the submitted work does not comply with the journal's policies, the authors are informed of the decision within thirty days from the date of submission.

Articles that pass the desk review are sent to two specialists from the journal's pool of reviewers, or to external researchers selected for their knowledge of the article's subject area. Reviewers are professors and researchers associated with stricto sensu graduate programmes at national or international institutions, invited by the editorial team, which ensures a close match between the reviewer's area of expertise and the article's topic.

Articles are evaluated considering the relevance of the topic studied, writing quality, the logical coherence of the theoretical review and use of appropriate references, the adequacy of methodological procedures, the depth and consistency of the analyses, the drawing of conclusions, and the relevance of the contributions, using a predefined form provided to reviewers.

Possible Outcomes

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

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

After making the requested adjustments and verification by reviewers and editors, the articles are submitted to spelling and grammar review, conformity with the journal's standards, and final layout.

Editorial Decision-Making Process

A decision on a manuscript is reached through consultation among the editors and, where necessary, the Scientific Editorial Board, based on the reviewer reports received. When evaluating a manuscript for publication, in addition to considering standard criteria pertaining to rigour, adequate weight is given to other attributes such as quality of presentation, reliability and authenticity of data, and contribution to new knowledge in education, didactics, and related fields.

↑ Back to Top

---

3. Ethics and Responsibilities of Peer Reviewers

Potential reviewers should provide accurate personal and professional information regarding their expertise, including verifiable contact information. On receiving an invitation for review, a response (whether available or not) should be sent within a reasonable time frame. One should accept to undertake the review only if qualified to judge the particular manuscript and able to return a review within the proposed or mutually agreed time frame.

Impersonation of 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, or directly contact the author(s). Reviews should be conducted objectively, with views expressed with supporting arguments and references as necessary.

A reviewer should bring potential ethical issues in a manuscript to the attention of the Editorial Team, including any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published document(s) of which the reviewer has personal knowledge.

Reviewers who have accepted reviewing assignments are expected to submit their reports within the deadline stated in the invitation or a time frame mutually agreed with the Editorial Team. The peer review stage may take up to one month, as stated on the journal's public peer review page.

Reviewers should declare to the Editorial Team any potential competing interests and should decline to review a manuscript with which they believe to have competing interests resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the manuscript. As a rule of RDD, reviewers are always external to Unasp.

Unpublished contents disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used by a reviewer in any form 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 serve as reviewers or as decision-issuing editors. Any use of AI tools in peer review (e.g., for language editing) must be clearly disclosed in the review form (reviewers) or decision letter (editors). Uploading a manuscript, in whole or in part, to AI tools that do not guarantee the confidentiality of the content is prohibited.

↑ Back to Top

---

4. Ethics and Responsibilities of Editorial Team and Board Members

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

An Editor shall ensure that the peer review process is unbiased, timely, and of high technical quality; and shall maintain high standards for manuscripts recommended for publication. All Editors shall 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 all external communications.

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

Submissions by Editors or Editorial Board Members

Because the journal is published by a graduate programme linked to the funding institution, preserving editorial independence receives special attention. Manuscripts authored by members of the editorial team, or by faculty and students directly involved in running the journal, 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, and the author-editor will have no access to information about the review process;
• The entire editorial process will follow a strict double-blind peer review procedure, with reviewers external to Unasp;
• The editorial independence of reviewers and authors will be preserved;
• A transparency note will be included in the published article or editorial explaining the exceptional handling of the manuscript.

↑ Back to Top

---

5. Plagiarism Policy

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

A manuscript submitted to the journal goes through a plagiarism check by the editorial team using the Plagius — Plagiarism Detector software. If the manuscript is found to have similarity, the author is advised to suitably revise the manuscript. A manuscript with a high level of similarity is rejected.

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

In an event of substantial plagiarism, the journal may inform the concerned institution to which the author(s) is affiliated for appropriate measures and may bar new submissions for a defined period.

↑ Back to Top

---

6. Conflicts of Interest Policy

The journal adopts procedures to identify, prevent, and manage conflicts of interest in 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 may influence the research; consulting fees, honoraria, or financial support; research funding contracts or sponsorships; intellectual property interests; advisory board participation or governance roles; ties to an institution, programme, teaching material, or educational technology evaluated in the study; and institutional or organizational policies that may influence the results or interpretation of the study.

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

Editorial Assignment and Management of Conflicts

Manuscripts are assigned to editors and reviewers with the objective of minimising 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 advisees or advisors; or who have personal, financial, or institutional relationships that may compromise impartiality. Reviewers are always external to Unasp.

If, after assignment, an editor or reviewer identifies a potential conflict not previously declared, they must immediately inform the Editors and recuse themselves. In situations where all available editors present 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 rigour. All declared conflicts of interest are handled confidentially and managed in accordance with COPE guidelines and Brazilian best practices in scholarly publishing.

↑ Back to Top

---

7. Copyright and Licensing

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 use), provided that appropriate credit is given to the original author(s) and the source is properly cited.

Prior to publication, all authors must sign a Term of Authorization for Publication, confirming the originality of the work, the grant of the right of first publication, and agreement with the adopted licensing terms. Questions about copyright may be sent to editora.unaspress@ucb.org.br.

Open Access Policy

The journal provides immediate and unrestricted open access to all published content, based on the principle that making scientific knowledge freely available contributes to the worldwide democratisation of knowledge. There is no embargo period. The journal is distributed exclusively in electronic format at revistas.unasp.edu.br/rdd.

Repository and Self-Archiving Policy

Authors are permitted and encouraged to disseminate their work widely. The journal allows the deposit of all versions of manuscripts in institutional, thematic, 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's policy is registered in the Diadorim/IBICT directory.

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 proper attribution is given in accordance with the CC BY 4.0 license.

↑ Back to Top

---

8. Article Processing Charges (APC)

The journal is committed to removing financial barriers to scholarly publication. Authors are never required to pay for submission, peer review, copyediting, typesetting, digital archiving, or online hosting. The costs associated with the operation of the journal are borne by the funding institution, the Centro Universitário Adventista de São Paulo (Unasp), Engenheiro Coelho campus.

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

The journal does not offer fee waivers or discounts because no fees exist. Authors should be cautious of any communication requesting payment on behalf of the journal; any such request is fraudulent and should be reported to the Editorial Team immediately.

↑ Back to Top

---

9. Data Availability and Sharing

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

When data cannot be shared due to ethical, legal, or commercial restrictions — as with research involving identifiable participants, especially children and adolescents — authors must explain these limitations. Upon reasonable request and where permissible, authors should provide data to editors or reviewers for verification purposes.

Authors are encouraged to archive additional data and research materials supporting the results (instruments, interview scripts, protocols, teaching materials used) in an appropriate public repository within the legal and ethical framework — including the Brazilian General Data Protection Law (Law No. 13,709/2018) — and to include a data availability statement with a link to the repository.

Open Science Practices

RDD supports open science practices and encourages authors to: (i) deposit research data and materials in open repositories; (ii) preregister research plans where relevant; and (iii) deposit preprints and accepted manuscripts in institutional or thematic repositories, in accordance with the journal's self-archiving policy.

↑ Back to Top

---

10. Preprint Policy

A "preprint" is an early version of a manuscript created prior to the version accepted for publication. Deposition of a preprint on any recognised platform shall not be viewed as a prior publication (COPE Discussion Document: Preprints).

Authors are required to include details of a preprint posting, including DOI or other persistent identifier, while submitting their manuscript, taking care that this information does not compromise anonymity in double-blind review. Authors should not enhance the pre-print in any way that appears more like, or substitutes for, the final version.

Upon acceptance, the corresponding author must agree to the terms of the relevant publishing agreement. Authors are required to update the preprint to acknowledge acceptance:

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

↑ Back to Top

---

11. Archiving and Digital Preservation

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

Indexing and Discoverability

The journal is present in the following catalogues, directories, and databases: Latindex (Catalogue 2.0), Diadorim/IBICT, REDIB, LatinREV (FLACSO), Google Scholar, DRJI, ROAD (ISSN Network/UNESCO), Sumários de Revistas Brasileiras, BASE (Bielefeld Academic Search Engine), and LivRe (CNEN). Applications are in progress for: DOAJ, MIAR, Crossref, JournalTOCs, EZB, ZDB, OpenAIRE, and Zenodo. The up-to-date list is available on the Indexing Sources page.

Backup and Redundancy

The journal is published on the Open Journal Systems (OJS/PKP) platform hosted by Unasp, which maintains periodic backup routines for the system and database, ensuring data integrity and restoration capability.

Preservation Strategy

The journal adopts digital preservation strategies based on internationally recognised archiving principles. These practices include secure hosting on institutional servers, periodic backups, metadata structures compatible with indexing systems and digital libraries, and registration of the journal in open access aggregators and repositories. The policy aims to ensure that all published articles and supplementary materials remain available in the long term.

↑ Back to Top

---

12. Retraction and Correction Policy

The journal follows the COPE Retraction Guidelines to maintain the integrity of the scholarly record. The full policy is available on the Retraction Policy page. The following editorial actions may be taken when issues are identified in published articles:

Erratum

An erratum is published when errors introduced during the editorial or production process (e.g., in figures, tables, or layout) have caused incorrect understanding of the article and remained unnoticed during editing.

Corrigendum

A corrigendum is published when the authors realise that errors in the published article could 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 underway 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 major error or misconduct, including fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism beyond an acceptable limit), 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 shall be taken by the Editors, in consultation with the Scientific 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 retraction. The retracted article will be clearly marked 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 scholarly record is corrected and transparent.

↑ Back to Top

---

13. Withdrawal Policy

The Editorial Team discourages the withdrawal of manuscripts submitted to the journal as it causes wastage of time and effort of editors, reviewers, and others associated with the processing of the manuscript. Authors should carefully assess the suitability of the journal's requirements and policies before submitting.

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

In case a withdrawal request is received after completion of the review process and/or communication of acceptance, the Editorial Team may debar 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 further acted upon.

↑ Back to Top

---

14. Advertising Policy

Published editorial content of the journal is not compromised by commercial or financial interests, or by any arrangements with advertising clients or sponsors. Unasp and the Editorial Team do not accept any consideration and do not print advertising, commercial content, or sponsored articles. Authors of scientific articles cannot link advertisements using keywords.

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

↑ Back to Top

---

15. Complaints and Appeals

The journal adopts transparent procedures for receiving, evaluating, and resolving complaints and appeals related to editorial processes, publication ethics, and scientific integrity. All cases are treated with seriousness, impartiality, and confidentiality.

Scope of Complaints

The Editorial Team 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 research fraud; violations of ethical standards; undisclosed conflicts of interest; reviewer bias or unethical interference; excessive delays in editorial processing; and allegations of intellectual property infringement.

Submission of Complaints and Appeals

Complaints and appeals must be formally submitted to the Editorial Team in writing, through the channels listed on the journal's Contact page. The submission must include: clear identification of the complainant; detailed description of the issue; and supporting documentation or evidence, when available. Anonymous or unsubstantiated complaints may not be considered.

Appeals Against Editorial Decisions

Authors may submit an appeal against an editorial decision, including manuscript rejection. The Editors will evaluate the authors' justification, reviewer reports, and compliance with journal policies. Based on this evaluation, the journal may: maintain 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 Editors in consultation with the Scientific 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 evaluated in accordance with COPE guidelines and applicable Brazilian regulations 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 subject to the jurisdiction of the competent courts in Brazil.

↑ Back to Top

---

16. Publication Schedule and Editorial Workflow

Continuous Publication

Articles are published individually as soon as they complete peer review, editorial processing, and production, without waiting for issue closure. This model ensures that approved articles are made available to the scholarly community as soon as possible, reducing the time between acceptance and publication. After publication, the article is incorporated into the current annual volume/issue.

Articles may be written in Portuguese, English, or Spanish, following the journal's guidelines and template.

Editorial Workflow

The editorial process of Revista Docent Discunt follows these stages:

Estimated Editorial Timelines

Stage	Estimated Timeline
Desk review	Up to 30 days
Peer review	Up to 1 month, after the reviewer accepts the invitation
Author revisions (when applicable)	Depending on revision scope
Spelling and grammar review and layout	Depending on editorial workload
Publication	Continuous flow, upon production completion

↑ Back to Top

---

17. Journal Revenue Sources

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

Revista Docent Discunt is published by the professional master's programme in education of the Centro Universitário Adventista de São Paulo (Unasp), Engenheiro Coelho campus, the institution that is the journal's financial and content sponsor. All operational costs — including hosting, digital preservation, editorial management, copyediting, and layout — are funded by the responsible institution. The journal does not charge article processing charges (APCs), submission fees, or any other fees to 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.

This financial model ensures that editorial independence is preserved and that no financial considerations influence the acceptance, rejection, or publication of scholarly work.

↑ Back to Top