Revista Brasileira de Biometria / Brazilian Journal of Biometrics (RBB) is a peer-reviewed journal committed to ensuring the highest standards of publication ethics. All parties involved in the act of publishing (editors, authors, reviewers, and the publisher) have to agree upon standards of ethical behaviour. We state the following principles of Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice Statement based on the Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors of the Committee on Publication Ethics – COPE (available at




Editor-in chief is responsible for

  1. having complete responsibility and authority to reject/accept an article;
  2. only accepting a paper when reasonably certain;
  3. being responsible for the contents and overall quality of the RBB;
  4. always considering the needs of the authors, and the readers when attempting to improve the RBB;
  5. guaranteeing the quality of the papers and the integrity of the academic record;
  6.  publishing errata pages or make corrections when needed;
  7. having a clear picture of a research's funding sources;
  8. basing their decisions solely one the papers' importance, originality, clarity and relevance to publication's scope. Evaluating manuscripts exclusively on the basis of their academic, and intellectual merit without regard to the author(s)’ race, age, gender, sexual orientation, disability, ethnic origin, religious belief, citizenship, political orientation or social class;
  9. not reversing their decisions nor overturn the ones of previous editors without serious reason;
  10. ensuring a fair and unbiased double-blind peer review of the manuscripts and that all information related to them is kept confidential. They also ensure that both authors’ and peer reviewers’ identities are protected;
  11. ensuring that all research material that the RBB publish conforms to internationally accepted ethical guidelines;
  12. acting when suspecting of misconduct, whether a paper is published or unpublished, and make all reasonable attempts to persist in obtaining a resolution to the problem;
  13. not rejecting papers based on suspicions, they should have proof of misconduct;
  14.  not allowing any conflicts of interest between staff, authors, reviewers and editors;
  15.  providing to the new editors with guidelines on everything that is expected of them, and keeping existing members updated on new policies and developments of the RBB;
  16. providing guidance to editors, authors, and reviewers on everything that is expected of them, and also a description of peer review processes;
  17. developing and maintaining a database of suitable reviewers, and updating it on the basis of reviewer performance;
  18.  ensuring that unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript are not used in an editor’s own research without the express written consent of the author;
  19. taking reasonable responsive measures when ethical complaints are presented concerning a submitted or published manuscript or editors. In cases of suspected misconduct, following the COPE flowcharts, available at;
  20.  ensuring the periodicity of the RBB (quarterly).




Co-editors are responsible for

  1. helping the Editor-in-Chief in all his duties and, therefore, the Co-editor plays a vital role in supporting the Editor-in-Chief;
  2. keeping regular communication with the Editor-in-Chief to ensure ongoing development of the RBB;
  3. advising on journal policy and scope and, consequently, insuring the development of the RBB;
  4. taking reasonable responsive measures when ethical complaints are presented concerning of suspected misconduct of the Editor-in-Chief and Associate Editors.




Associate editors are responsible for

  1.  offering expertise in their specialist area;
  2.  reviewing submitted manuscripts;
  3. advising on RBB policy and scope;
  4. working to ensure ongoing development of the RBB;
  5. identifying topics for Special Issues of the RBB or recommend a Conference which would promote the journal, which they might also help to organize and/or guest edit;
  6. attracting new and established authors for submitting their articles;
  7. submitting some of their own work for consideration, ensuring that they adhere to Conflict of Interest Rules, and stating their relationship to the journal. This is very important as the RBB cannot be seen to publish only papers from editors;




Guest editors are responsible for

  1. defining the subject matter, and role of every article in a thematic issue;
  2. providing clear guidelines to authors regarding the topic and boundaries of their contributions and the overall design of the issue ensuring, in collaboration with the Editor-in-Chief, that appropriate reviewers are selected for all the articles (whether they have been commissioned or submitted as a result of a call for papers);
  3. establishing a timeline for draft paper submission, peer review, revision, and final paper submission with the Editor-in-Chief, and ensuring that all deadlines are met;
  4. writing the Introduction to the issue.




  1. No fees or charges are required from authors for manuscript processing and, therefore, authors pay neither submission nor publication fee;
  2. All submitted manuscripts to the RBB are subject to strict peer-review process by, at least, two reviewers;
  3. The factors that are considered in review are relevance, soundness, significance, originality, readability, and language;
  4. The possible decisions of a submitted manuscript are: accept submission, revision required, resubmit for review, resubmit elsewhere, or decline submission;
  5. If authors are encouraged to revise and resubmit a submission, there is no guarantee that the revised submission will be accepted;
  6. Rejected manuscripts will not be re-reviewed;
  7. The manuscript acceptance is constrained by such legal requirements as shall then be in force regarding libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism;
  8. No research can be included in more than one publication.




  1. Authors must certify that their manuscripts are their original work;
  2. Authors must certify that the manuscript is not currently being considered for publication elsewhere. Submitting the same manuscript simultaneously to more than one publication at a time constitutes unethical publishing behaviour, and it is unacceptable;
  3. Authors must participate in the peer review process.
  4. Authors are obliged to provide retractions or corrections of mistakes.
  5. Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the reported study. Others who have participated in certain substantive aspects of the research project should be acknowledged or listed as contributors;
  1. The corresponding author with the journal should ensure that all appropriate co-authors are included in the author list of the manuscript, and that there is a full consensus of all co-authors in approving the final version of the paper and its submission for publication;
  1. Authors must state that all data in the paper are real and authentic;
  2. Authors must notify the editors of any conflicts of interest;
  3. Authors must ensure that they have written an original work, and that any work or words of others authors, contributors or sources have been appropriately credited and referenced. Authors must identify all sources used in the creation of their manuscript. Plagiarism in all its forms constitutes unethical publishing behaviour, and it is unacceptable;
  4. When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in his/her own published work, it is the author’s obligation to promptly notify the journal editors and cooperate with them to retract or correct the manuscript;
  5. Authors of articles of original research should present an accurate account of the work performed as well as an objective discussion of its significance. Underlying data should be represented accurately in the manuscript. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behaviour, and they are unacceptable;
  6. Authors should disclose financial or other conflict of interest that might influence the results or interpretation of their manuscript. All sources of financial support should be disclosed;




  1. Reviewers evaluate manuscripts based on content without regard to the authors’ race, age, gender, ethnic origin, sexual orientation, disability, religious belief, citizenship, political orientation, or social class;
  2. Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the paper;
  3. Reviewers should keep all information regarding papers confidential and treat them as privileged information;
  4. Reviewers should express their views clearly with supporting arguments;
  5. Reviews should be conducted objectively, with no personal criticism of the author and, therefore, reviews should be conducted objectively, and observations should be formulated clearly with supporting arguments, so that authors can use them for improving their article;
  6. Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors;
  7. Reviewers should call to the Editor-in-Chief's and/or Co-editors’ attention for any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge;
  8. Any invited reviewer who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its timely review will be impossible should immediately notify the Editor-in-Chief or Co-editors so that alternative reviewers can be contacted;
  9.  Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not be used for personal advantage.




As publisher of the RBB, the Editora-UFLA

  1.  provides practical support to the editors of RBB so that they can follow the COPE Code of Conduct for Journal;
  2.  ensures the autonomy of editorial decisions;
  3.  protects intellectual property and copyright;
  4.  ensures that good practice is maintained to the standards defined above;
  5. in the event that editors are made aware of any allegation of misconduct, the publisher shall deal with allegations appropriately.



All articles published by the RBB are committed to publishing only original material, that is, material that has neither been published elsewhere, nor is under review elsewhere. Manuscripts that are found to have been plagiarized from a manuscript by other authors, whether published or unpublished, will incur plagiarism sanctions.


Duplicate submission

Papers that are found to have been published elsewhere, or to be under review elsewhere, will incur duplicate submission/publication sanctions. If authors have used their own previously published study, or study that is currently under review, as the basis for a submitted manuscript, they are required to cite the previous paper, and indicate how their submitted manuscript offers novel contributions beyond those of the previous work.


Citation manipulation

Submitted papers that are found to include citations whose primary purpose is to increase the number of citations to a given author’s article, or to articles published in a particular journal, will incur citation manipulation sanctions.


Data fabrication and falsification

Submitted papers that are found to have either fabricated or falsified experimental results, including the manipulation of images and/or graphics, will incur data fabrication and, consequently, falsification sanctions.


Improper author contribution or attribution

All listed authors must have made a significant scientific contribution to the study in the paper and approved all its claims. It is important to list everyone who made a significant scientific contribution, including students and laboratory technicians.


Redundant publications

Redundant publications involve the inappropriate division of study outcomes into several articles, and it is unacceptable.