editorial ethics

The ethical procedures followed by Psique throughout the editorial process are based on the Codes of Conduct of the Council of Science Editors (2012) and the Committee on Publication Ethics (2011).

Publishers Responsibilities

publishing decisions

The editor is responsible for deciding which of the works submitted to the journal will be published.

The editor will evaluate manuscripts without regard to the authors' race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy.

The decision will be based on the study's importance, originality and clarity, and the validity of the study and its relevance to the journal's objectives. Current legal requirements regarding defamation, copyright infringement and plagiarism must be respected.


The editor and any member of the editorial team may not disclose any information about a manuscript submitted for review to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the editor.

Disclosure and conflicts of interest

Other data and materials from the studies, in documents sent for submission, will not be used by the editor, or by the members of the editorial board, for their own research purposes, without the explicit written consent of the author.

Responsibilities of Reviewers

Contribution to editorial decisions

The peer review process helps the editor and editorial board make editorial decisions and can also serve the author in improving their article.


Any selected reviewer who feels unqualified to review a submitted manuscript, or anticipates that immediate review will be impossible, must notify the editor and withdraw from the review process.


All manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be shared with or discussed with others, except as authorized by the publisher.

Objectivity standards

Comments must be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the authors is unacceptable. Reviewers must express their views clearly, supported by objective arguments.

font recognition

Reviewers should identify cases in which a publication referred to in the document was not cited in the reference list. They must indicate whether observations or arguments derived from other publications are accompanied by the respective source. Reviewers will notify the editor of any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under review and any other published document of which they are aware.

Disclosure and conflict of interest

Insider information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal purposes. Reviewers should not evaluate manuscripts where they have potential conflicts of interest, resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships, or relationships with any of the authors, companies, or institutions associated with the documents.

Authors' Responsibilities

Scientific reporting standards

Authors of original research reports must provide an accurate account of the work performed, as well as an objective discussion of its significance. Underlying data must be accurately presented in the manuscript. An article must contain sufficient details and references to allow other investigators to replicate the study. Fraudulent or inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable.

Data access and retention

Authors may be asked to provide the raw study data along with the document for editorial review, and authors should be prepared to make study data publicly available. Authors must guarantee, at all times, access to data by other competent professionals for at least ten years after publication (preferably through an institutional data repository or other data centers), provided that the confidentiality of the participants can be protected and legal rights over data respected.

Originality, plagiarism and source recognition

Authors will only submit entirely original works and will properly cite the work and/or words of others. Publications that influenced the definition of the nature of the work should also be cited.

Multiple, redundant or concurrent publication

Documents that essentially describe the same investigation should not be published in more than one journal. Submitting the same article to more than one journal constitutes unethical editorial behavior and is unacceptable.

Articles that have been published as copyrighted material in other publications cannot be submitted. In addition, manuscripts submitted for publication to the journal and under review cannot be submitted to other copyrighted publications. However, when submitting a manuscript, the author(s) retain the material rights to the publication. In the event of publication, they permit the use of their work under a license, which allows others to copy, distribute and transmit the work, as well as adapt the work and make commercial use of it.

Article authorship

Authorship should be limited to those who significantly contributed to the conception, design, execution or interpretation of the reported study. All those who have made significant contributions should be listed as co-authors.

Corresponding author warrants that all contributing co-authors, and not other uninvolved persons, are included in the author list.

The corresponding author will also verify that all co-authors have approved the final version of the document and that they have agreed to its submission for publication.

Disclosure and conflicts of interest

All authors must include a statement expressing any conflicts of interest, financial or other substantive, that could be considered to influence the results or their interpretation in the manuscript. All sources of financial support for the project must be disclosed.

Fundamental errors in published works

When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in his or her own published work, it is the author's obligation to promptly notify the journal editor and cooperate with the editor to correct the article in the form of an erratum.

Measures against Violation of the Code of Ethics

The Psique Editorial Board will seek, by all means at its disposal, to ensure that ethical standards and good editorial practices are ensured by all those involved in the editorial process.

In the event that any unethical behavior on the part of the authors is detected, the Psique Editorial Board may initiate an investigation process, when supported by sufficient evidence, and trigger one of the following actions, which it will communicate to the author involved:

a) Inform the author about the unethical behavior and about the necessary steps to correct the error and avoid future errors;

b) Publication of a formal notice, detailing the unethical behavior;

c) Formal letter to the author, the entity to which he is affiliated and the entity that supports the investigation;

d) Formal refusal of the article or removal of the article, with the author, the indexing services and the readers being informed of the reasons for the decision;

e) Report the case to the respective professional organization or higher authority for further investigation of the case.


Committee on Publication Ethics (2011). Code of Conduct and Best-Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors. Retrieved from http://publicationethics.org/files/Code_of_conduct_for_journal_editors_Mar11.pdf

Scott-Lichter, D. & Editorial Policy Committee, Council of Science Editors (2012). CSE's White Paper on Promoting Integrity in Scientific Journal Publications. Retrieved from https://www.councilscienceeditors.org/wp-content/uploads/entire_whitepaper.pdf