Ethics and Misconduct Policy, Errata and Retraction

The Coffee Science journal follows the principles of ethics in publication of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) code of conduct to guide its editorial procedures, including conduct in case of errors or misconduct in research and scientific communication. These procedures align with the SciELO Good Practices Guide for Strengthening Ethics in Scientific Publication.

It is assumed that, during the development of the work, the authors have fully complied with the ethical and legal standards in force in the country where the activities were carried out, including the writing and experimental conduct. This includes respect for institutional and legal guidelines on research ethics, as well as issues related to sex and gender when applicable.

The corresponding author assumes full responsibility for the submitted manuscript, including the veracity of the information, compliance with the journal's editorial standards, and the guarantee that all co-authors effectively participated in the work, read the final version, and agree to its submission. If the author responsible for the submission is not the corresponding author, this responsibility may be formally transferred by means of a statement in the cover letter.

In cases of misconduct in the article publication process, the authors will be notified, and an investigative process will be initiated and, if misconduct is confirmed, the publication will be removed from the platform.

The use of errata and the retraction process are governed by the guidelines provided by SciELO:

Guide for registering, marking, and publishing retractions: https://www.scielo.org/documents/72/guia_retratacao.pdf

 

All authors must indicate their contribution and report whether or not there is a conflict of interest.

 

The editorial process of the Coffee Science journal is completely egalitarian and inclusive, and there are no privileges of any kind. Editors and reviewers act impartially, with integrity and confidentiality in their evaluation, prioritizing constructive criticism and meeting agreed deadlines.