About the Journal

Since 2014, the Oswaldo Cruz Foundation (Fiocruz) has implemented its Open Access to Knowledge Policy, promoting free and open access to its scientific production through the Institutional Repository Arca (https://www.arca.fiocruz.br/ ). The adoption of Open Science and its practices aim to strengthen Fiocruz's activities and mission before society, promoting tangible benefits for the quality of life of the Brazilian population. In line with this policy, all publications produced in Fiocruz journals must be widely published, with free and unrestricted access for any reader. An initiative that facilitates this access is the Fiocruz Journal Portal (https://periodicos.fiocruz.br/), an environment that integrates the institution's scientific journals.

Visa em Debate adopts a series of practices, such as the free access policy, the code of good practices for editors and the use of social networks to promote published works. In addition, it requires the precise indication of the role of each of the authors in articles with multiple authors. The journal accepts and encourages the publication of manuscripts in preprints repositories on public platforms so that they are openly discussed before being published.

The contribution of the associate editors is duly credited in the published article. The evaluators receive a declaration of the opinion of the manuscript and can also validate the activity in Publons.

This journal offers immediate free access to its content, following the principle that making scientific knowledge freely available to the public provides greater worldwide democratization of knowledge. The journal Visa em Debate does not charge authors a publication fee and the articles are made available free of charge, in accordance with the Creative Commons license adopted by the journal.

Readers' rights: Open access to all articles immediately after publication.

Rights of reuse: Visa under Debate adopts the Creative Commons CC-BY License in accordance with Fiocruz Open Access to Knowledge Policy. With this license it is allowed to access, download (download), copy, print, share, reuse and distribute the articles, as long as it is for non-commercial use and with the citation of the source, giving the due authorship credits and mention of Visa in Debate. In these cases, no permission is required from the authors or publishers.

Copyright:

Authors' deposit/self-archiving rights: Authors are encouraged to deposit the version published with the link of their article in Visa em Debate in institutional repositories.

Visa em Debate encourages the deposit of research data in an open data repository. We ask you to inform the access URL in the article information in the Open Data item.

The journal encourages the deposit of manuscripts on preprints platforms. If the deposit occurs, it is necessary that the authors notify the editors using the "AUTHORIZATION LETTER FOR PUBLICATION", inserting the link (URL) and the DOI number of the accepted manuscript by the preprint platform. With regard to manuscripts that have already been released as preprints, the evaluation will take place in a double-blind manner.

Visa in Debate adheres to Committee on Publications Ethics (COPE) Guidelines.

Every submission will be initially analyzed by the editor-in-chief, who will evaluate possible authorship problems (such as plagiarism, republication, approval by the Ethics Committee for research with human beings, etc.). Cases of possible misconduct will be analyzed according to the COPE flowchart.

Research with procedures involving human beings (interviews, questionnaires, focus groups, clinical studies, among other forms) needs approval recognized by an Ethics Committee. Upon submission, the authors must send approval by an Ethics Committee recognized by the National Research Ethics Committee (Conep) as a supplementary document, in accordance with the norms of Resolution No. 466/2012 (http://conselho.saude.gov.br/resolucoes/2012/Reso466.pdf) of the National Health Council (CNS) or equivalent body in the country of origin of the research. The manuscript must contain the process number and the name of the Ethics Committee to which it was submitted and declare, when applicable, that the research subjects signed the free and informed consent form (TCLE). The norms applicable to research in Human and Social Sciences whose methodological procedures involve the use of data directly obtained from the participants or identifiable information can be accessed at the following link: http://conselho.saude.gov.br/resolucoes/2016/reso510.pdf . Access the resolution that regulates specific norms for research of strategic interest to the SUS. http://conselho.saude.gov.br/resolucoes/2018/Reso580.pdf

The Editorial Board of Visa em Debate reserves the right to request additional information regarding the ethical procedures performed in the research.

Editors will accept manuscripts describing experiments conducted using animals. These experiments must be carried out in accordance with current legislation and authorized by the Ethics in Animal Use Committee. It is recommended that authors follow the guidelines in the ARRIVE Guide (Animal Research: Reporting of In Vivo Experiments).

Committee on Publication Ethics Basic Guidelines—COPE ^[1]

COPE establishes ethical guidelines for reviewers during the peer review process. These guidelines in generic language are intended to serve as a reference for editors in the search for reviewers, as well as for reviewers, who are key players in the editorial process.

Reviewers must:

• Agree to review manuscripts only on subjects in which they have experience.
• Perform the review in a timely manner.
• Respect the confidentiality of the review and not reveal any manuscript details during or after the review process, other than those released by the journal.
• Avoid using the information obtained during the peer review process for one's own benefit, to produce advantages, disadvantages or discredit others.
• Declare conflicts of interest.
• Avoid your comments being influenced by the origin of the manuscripts, nationality, religion or political beliefs, gender or other characteristics of the authors, as well as commercial considerations.
• Be objective and constructive in your comments, avoiding personal, hostile, defamatory or derogatory comments.
• Provide periodicals with up-to-date and truthful personal and professional information that accurately represents their specialty.
• Recognise that the behavior of adopting a false identity during the review process is considered serious misconduct.

Expectations during the review process

When invited to review a manuscript, reviewers should:

• Respond without delay, especially if they are unable to accept the invitation.
• Declare when they do not have sufficient knowledge and experience in the subject matter to carry out the review. Also state when they are able to assess only part of the manuscript, clearly delineating the areas in which they have relevant expertise.
• Only accept reviewing a manuscript when you are sure you can return it within the deadline or mutually agree with the journal a new deadline, informing about the need for its extension.
• Declare any potential or actual conflicts of interest regarding the journal or manuscript (which may be, for example, personal, financial, intellectual, professional, political or religious).
• Follow the editorial policies of the journals on issues that are classified as conflicts of interest. If no guidance is provided, reviewers should inform the journal whether they work or will work at the same institution as some of the authors of the manuscript and whether they were students, mentors, collaborators or have a personal relationship with them.
• Revisit the manuscript that they have previously revised for another journal, since the fundamentals and criteria for evaluation and acceptance may be different.
• Ensure that reviews are based on technical criteria and not influenced by personal considerations or made with the intention of the manuscript receiving a specific result (positive or negative).
• Avoid carrying out reviews for the sole purpose of gaining visibility.
• Decline to review if involved in any work reported on the manuscript.
• Refuse to review the manuscript if it is very similar to the work you are developing.

During the review process

Reviewers must:

• Notify the journal immediately or seek advice if they discover a conflict of interest that was not evident when agreeing to undertake the review, or anything that prevents a fair and impartial review.
• Decline to review the manuscript and associated material pending instructions from the journal on issues that may cause termination of the review order.
• Read the entire manuscript, ancillary material and journal instructions, informing the journal if anything is unclear, as well as requesting any missing or incomplete items necessary to carry out a complete review.
• Notify the journal as soon as possible if they consider that they do not have the necessary experience to evaluate all aspects of the manuscript, not waiting until the submission of their comment which may unduly delay the review process.
• Do not involve another person in the revision of the manuscript, without first asking permission from the journal to include other names that will help in the evaluation, ensuring that they will receive due credit for their efforts.
• Keep all manuscript and review details confidential.
• Contact the journal if circumstances arise that prevent the submission of the review in a timely manner and provide an estimated date that includes the time needed to complete the review.
• In the case of a double-blind review, if the identity of the authors is suspected, notify the journal.
• Notify the journal immediately if they encounter any irregularity related to the ethical aspects of the work, if they consider that there is a substantial similarity between the evaluated manuscript and a manuscript submitted to another journal, as well as with another article already published, or if they suspect bad conduct during research, writing and submission of the manuscript. Reviewers should, however, keep your concerns confidential and not investigate them personally unless the journal asks for more information or advice.
• Do not intentionally prolong the review process, either by delaying submission of your review or requesting unnecessary additional information from the journal or authors.
• Ensure that your assessment is based on the merits of the work and is not influenced, positively or negatively, by financial, personal or intellectual biases.
• Do not contact authors directly without permission from the journal.

When to prepare the report

Reviewers must:

• Keep in mind that editors are concerned with subject knowledge, common sense, fair and honest assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of the manuscript.
• Make it clear at the beginning of your review if you have been asked to address only specific parts or aspects of a manuscript and indicate which these are.
• Follow required feedback instructions.
• Be objective and constructive in your review and provide feedback that can help authors improve their manuscript.
• Do not make derogatory comments or unfounded accusations.
• Be specific in your criticisms and provide appropriately referenced evidence to support claims such as “that work has been done,” helping editors in their assessments and decisions.
• Remember that the manuscript belongs to the author and do not try to rewrite it in your style; however, suggesting changes is important to improve writing clarity.
• Be aware of use of language that does not seem authoritative and provide feedback in this regard.
• Make it clear that suggesting additional research is essential to support the claims made in the manuscript, and that doing so will strengthen or extend the work.
• Do not prepare your report or include comments in such a way as to suggest that the assessment was done by someone else.
• Do not prepare your report in a way that unfairly portrays another person.
• Do not make unfair comments about any work cited in the manuscript.
• Ensure that your comments and recommendations to the editor are consistent with your report to authors (most feedback should be placed in the report to authors).
• The additional editor comments section should not be the place to attack or make accusations.
• Do not suggest that authors include quotes from the reviewer or their associates just to increase their visibility. Suggestions must be based on valid academic or technological reasons.
• Check if the journal allows you to sign comments and what is the best way to do it.
• If the editor decides to review the manuscript himself, he should do so transparently and not under the identity of an anonymous reviewer.

Expectation after the review process

Reviewers must:

• Continue to keep manuscript details and your comments confidential.
• Respond promptly, if contacted by the journal, on matters relating to your opinion and provide the required information.
• Contact the journal if anything material that may affect your comments and recommendations comes to light after you submit your review.
• Read opinions from another reviewer, when provided by the journal, to improve your own understanding of the topic and the decisions made.
• Try to accommodate the journal's requests to review resubmitted manuscripts.

Editors and reviewers of Visa em Debate magazine, in addition to authors who publish in the journal, must always observe the guidelines on Sex and Gender Equity in Research (Sex and Gender Equity in Research - SAGER) . The SAGER guidelines comprise a set of guidelines that guide reporting of information about sex and gender in study design, data analysis, and results and interpretation of findings, as described in English at https://www.equator-network.org/reporting-guidelines/sager-guidelines/ and in Portuguese at https://www.scielo.br/scielo.php ?script=sci_arttext&pid=S2237-96222017005001101&lng=en&nrm=iso&tlng=pt. In addition, Visa em Debate observes the policy of gender equity in the training of its body of editors and reviewers.