Scope and policy

Responsibilities of the Editor-in-Chief (EiC)

Ensure the publication of the periodical within the established deadlines.
Ensure the quality of selected texts that are appropriate to the interests of readers.
Establish the policy for manuscript submission, peer review, opinions and resubmission.
Ensure that articles are reviewed and accepted solely based on scientific merit, and not based on any influence, whether commercial or personal relationships.
Maintain transparency throughout the manuscript analysis and editing process.
Investigate all complaints and/or questions related to submissions to the journal, whether accepted or not, and give authors the opportunity to respond whenever necessary.
Provide input to members of the journal’s editorial board to define the types of publication and selection criteria for manuscripts accepted by the journal.
Develop policies and procedures to attract manuscripts of scientific quality;
Examine the magazine’s graphic proofs, ensuring their quality.
Adopt procedures safeguarding ethical issues, conflicts of interest and compliance with the policies adopted by the Brazilian Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics Associations, to which it is affiliated.
Treat all individuals with respect, impartiality, and without discrimination based on gender identity, race, sexual orientation, religion or political beliefs, and geographic region.
Maintain impartiality and clarity when publishing sponsored supplements and/or any other type of sponsorship/funding.
Ensure open access and describe in all articles the Creative Commons license modality that the journal has adopted.
Ensure the organization of all documents related to the journal submission process.

Associate Editor (EA) Responsibilities

Receive, read and evaluate the scientific quality of manuscripts received from the EIC.
Properly choose reviewers for the manuscripts under your responsibility.
Speed up the progress of assessments made by reviewers and maintain the analysis process within the schedule established by the EIC.
Analyze the opinions issued by reviewers and assist them in preparing recommendations to authors.

Responsibilities of Reviewers

Reviewers have the responsibility to review the manuscript objectively and fairly.
Critically analyze manuscripts, offering suggestions to improve quality and contribute to the decision-making process.
Maintain the confidentiality of any information provided by the editor.
Maintain strict confidentiality during the review process. O revisor não deve compartilhar informações de um manuscrito antes da conclusão da revisão e antes da aceitação e publicação.
Inform the editor of any similarity between the articles under analysis and published or ongoing studies that could be considered plagiarism
Disclose any potential conflicts of interest (financial, institutional, collaborative or other relationships between the reviewer and the author). If there is a conflict of interest or if the reviewer does not have the necessary expertise for the analysis, the manuscript must be immediately returned to the editor to choose another reviewer.

Responsibilities of the Author(s)

Attest to the originality of the submitted study and confirm that the article is not being considered elsewhere, nor accepted for publication in another journal.
Ensure approval from the Research Ethics Committee of the institution where the study was carried out.
Participate sufficiently in the work to assume public responsibility for its content. Your contributions can be made in different ways: conceptual, intellectual, experimental and analytical, as well as having participated in writing and reviewing the manuscript. Final approval of the version to be submitted must be approved and signed by all authors who are responsible for all aspects of the work (typed or printed name is not acceptable).
Ensure that studies including humans or animals comply with national and international requirements and guidelines (Declaration of Helsinki [2013], Declaration of Human and Animal Rights [Unesco, 1978]). This information must be stated in the manuscript, and the protocol number or exemption status of approved protocols must be stated in the manuscript at the time of submission for review.
Inform the registration number referring to the research approval opinion at the National Council for the Control of Animal Experimentation (Concea). In the case of animal experiments, they must comply with Law No. 11,794, of October 8, 2008, which establishes procedural rules for the scientific use of animals in Brazil. International manuscripts must present local ethical documentation to continue in the submission process. Any manuscript submitted without proof of approval by institutional or local research committees involving experiments on animals or humans will not be analyzed and will be returned to the authors.
Inform potential conflicts of interest in a written statement signed by all authors.
Provide data records associated with the study when requested by the editor.
Provide the definitive list of authors and their order at the time of original submission containing the record of authors with the respective Open Researcher and Contributor Identifier (ORCID), accessed at https://orcid.org/signin. Any addition, deletion or rearrangement of author names in the author list must be done only before the manuscript is accepted and only if approved by the journal editor. When this occurs, the corresponding author must obtain written agreement from the other authors, justifying the reason for the change (addition, removal or rearrangement), and send the request by letter or e-mail. Only in exceptional circumstances will the editor consider adding, deleting or reorganizing authors after acceptance of the manuscript. If the manuscript has already been published in an online edition, any requests approved by the editor will result in correction.
Meet the deadlines for corrections and clarifying responses to questions asked by the reviewer(s).
Use language that promotes social inclusion. The content of your manuscript must respect your reader and contain nothing that could imply that one individual is superior to another because of age, sex, race, ethnicity, culture, sexual orientation, disability or health condition. Writing must be free from prejudices, stereotypes, slang, references to dominant culture and/or cultural assumptions. Recognition of diversity conveys respect for all people, is sensitive to differences and promotes equal opportunities.

Scientific misconduct

It is considered unethical scientific behavior to present results of animal or clinical research that were conducted without appropriate approval and written informed consent as set forth above. Duplicate publication or when results are falsified, fabricated or plagiarized are also considered unethical. The RBGO allows the partial presentation of data from a manuscript in another means of publication, but, in these cases, the author must acknowledge the previous presentation, together with the identification of the source. Citing the original publication is essential when publishing. Dividing data, analysis and presentation of the same research into smaller units (publications called “salami”) should be avoided. Therefore, the author must acknowledge in his cover letter any similar publications or manuscripts that have been submitted for publication based on the same material.

Investigation of scientific misconduct

Submission of an article implies that the work described has not been previously published, except in the form of an abstract, published lecture or academic thesis. Scientific misconduct may be suspected when reviewers analyze the manuscript. Thus, RBGO may use additional resources to investigate the author’s unethical conduct, aiming to certify the originality or plagiarism of the article (examples: Crossref Similarity Check, iThenticate and others). All suspected cases will be initially investigated by the EIC and the Ethics and Professional Defense Committee of the Brazilian Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics Associations. The author will be notified in writing of the allegations and will be asked to provide information useful to the investigation, including access to all original data, notes and copies of previous publications. The author’s institution of affiliation may also be contacted.

Retraction Policy

RBGO’s retraction policy is based on COPE’s Retraction guidelines for advice and guidance for editors (DOI: https://doi.org/10.24318/cope.2019.1.4).

Editors will consider a publication subject to retraction if:

It is plagiarism;
Report unethical research;
Contain material or data without authorization for use;
Copyright has been infringed or there is some other serious legal issue (e.g. defamation, privacy).
Have clear evidence that the results are unreliable, whether due to a major error (for example, calculation error or experimental error) or the result of fabrication or falsification of data and/or images, for example.
Findings have been previously published elsewhere without proper attribution to previous sources or disclosure to the Editor, permission for republication, or justification (i.e., cases of redundant publication).
Has been published solely based on a compromised or manipulated peer review process;
The author(s) have not disclosed a conflict of interest, which, in the opinion of the Editor, may have unduly affected the interpretations of the work or the recommendations of the editors and reviewers.

Retraction notices must:

Be linked to the removed article, in all versions, printed or online);
Clearly identify the retracted article (for example, including the title and authors in the retraction header or citing the retracted article);
Be clearly identified as a retraction (i.e., distinct from other types of correction or comment);
Be published promptly to minimize harmful effects;
Be available free of charge to all readers (i.e., without access barriers or available only to subscribers);
Inform who is removing the article;
Indicate the reason(s) for the retraction;
Be objective and factual and avoid aggressive language.

Retractions are generally not appropriate if:

Authorship is disputed, but there is no reason to doubt the validity of the findings;
The main conclusions of the work are still credible and the correction can sufficiently address the errors or concerns;
A publisher has inconclusive evidence to support the retraction or is awaiting additional information, such as from an institutional investigation;
Conflicts of interest of the authors were reported to the journal after publication, but, in the opinion of the editor, they were unlikely to have influenced the interpretations or recommendations or the conclusions of the article;

To track a conflict of interest not disclosed in a published article, RBGO will follow the flowchart suggested by COPE (DOI: https://doi.org/10.24318/cope.2019.2.7).

Receiving articles deposited in preprint repositories

The manuscript(s) submitted and originating from a preprint repository(s) will be, obligatorily, peer-reviewed and will receive the definitive DOI issued by RBGO if approved. The manuscript(s) submitted for analysis by the RBGO editorial board cannot contain references to articles that have not been published in scientific journals and that have fully complied with the peer review process.