About the Journal
5.png)
Modernos & Contemporâneos is an online international philosophy periodical tied to the Institute of Philosophy and the Humanities of Campinas University (Unicamp) located in São Paulo, Brazil.
By publishing several dossiers, articles, reports, interviews, and translations, the periodical Modernos & Contemporâneos attempts to develop research and debate around subjects and philosophers that are modern and contemporary.
In interdisciplinary fashion, the periodical attempts as well to exploit thematic fields that have been privileged by philosophy up to now, by publishing several current reflections that have the goal to weave speculative ties between the subject matter and gender theory, feminist theory, intercultural approaches, African, Asian, American, and Native American philosophies, amongst others.
Last but not least, we will seek to propose emergent questions of the contemporary world, approached in a philosophical way, but also interdisciplinary, causing debates within the Brazilian and foreign scientific communities.
Peer Review Process
The "Independent Articles", "Reviews" and "Translations" are peer reviewed according to the Double Blind Review method.
Each submitted contribution is evaluated by peer reviewers: 02 peer reviewers for each "Independent Article", 01 peer reviewer for each "Review", and 01 peer reviewer for each "Translation".
Each reviewer is an expert in the area concerned, with a high academic degree.
In view of the impersonality and greater objectivity of the analysis and approval process, the files sent to the referees are depersonalized, that is, without the identification of authorship. On the other hand, the identity of the referees will not be provided to the authors either. Hence the use of the expression: "double-blind".
The originals of the articles are sent to the evaluation of two evaluators/partners, according to the blind review system.
The criteria for the evaluation of the articles take into account the relevance of the theme, originality of the contribution in the thematic areas of the Journal, clarity of the text, adequacy of the bibliography, structuring and theoretical development, methodology used, conclusions and contribution offered to the knowledge of the area.
The reviewer must fill out an "Evaluation Form", uniform and objective, prepared by the editors. A period of 45 days is allowed for the opinion to be issued. However, it is not possible to establish exactly the deadlines for the process that depends on the good will of the referees.
The referees may result in 5 types of evaluations: Accept; Accept with revisions; Submit again for evaluation; Submit to another journal; Reject.
In the case of articles judged inadequate by the 2 referees, the editor will justify to the authors the rejection by the editorial board. In the case of partial acceptance by at least 1 of the referees, the editor-in-chief will pass on to the author the changes in the article required by the referees. In the case of unqualified approval by the 2 referees, the editor-in-chief will inform the author of the total acceptance of his article. In all cases, the editor-in-chief will remain in contact with the authors to resolve controversies resulting from the review process and to clarify the opinion, especially when partial or negative.
The texts of the "Dossier" are organized by editors invited to each issue and it is not possible to submit articles to this section. Public calls are provided for the 'Independent Articles' section, which will be complementary to the theme proposed for each Dossier.
The articles in each "Dossier" published are first evaluated and selected by the responsible organizers. Then, the articles of the "Dossier" proposed by the organizer(s) are submitted to the analysis and careful evaluation of the three Editors (Editor in Chief, Associate Editor and Assistant Editor). When necessary, the articles in the "Dossier" may also be submitted for evaluation by ad hoc referees. The Editors of Modernos & Contemporâneos do not make any unconditional commitment of publication with the organizers, and define with them in advance the criteria adopted by the journal regarding the contributions of each "Dossier".
Declaration on Ethics and Undue Practices in scientific publications
Through this "Declaration on Ethics and Unethical Practice in Scientific Publications", Modern & Contemporary - International Journal of Philosophy brings together the combined efforts of authors, editors and reviewers to produce a responsible research publication.
This statement is based on ethical principles that generally follow the lines established by the Committee on Ethics in Research (CEP) and the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).
RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE AUTHORS
Texts sent for publication must be the result of original and unpublished research. They must include the data obtained and used, as well as an objective discussion of their results. Sufficient information should be provided so that any specialist can repeat the research carried out and confirm or refute the interpretations defended in the work.
Authors should be aware of and refrain from engaging in scientific misconduct and infringing the ethics of publication.
Authors should present their results explicitly, transparently, honestly and without falsification or inappropriate manipulation of data.
Authors must ensure that the data and results presented in the paper are original and have not been copied, invented, distorted or manipulated.
Plagiarism in all its forms, multiple or redundant publication and the invention or manipulation of data constitute a serious fault and are considered scientific fraud.
Authors must provide appropriate authorship and recognition. Authors should refrain from deliberately misrepresenting a scientist's relationship with published work. All authors must have contributed significantly to the research.
Authors should inform the editor when they have a direct or indirect conflict of interest with editors or members of the editorial team or international scientific committee.
No significant part of the article has been published previously, either as an article or as a chapter, or is being considered for publication elsewhere.
When an author discovers a serious error in his or her work, he or she is obliged to communicate it to the journal as soon as possible in order to modify the article, withdraw it, portray it or publish a correction or errata.
If the possible error is detected by any of the members of the Editorial Committee, the author is obliged to prove that his work is correct.
Authors are obliged, for all materials sent, to participate in a peer review process.
RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE EDITORS
The editorial team will be impartial in the management of the work proposed for publication and must respect the intellectual independence of the authors, who must be granted the right to reply if they have been negatively evaluated.
The people who make up the Editorial Team have the obligation to keep the texts received and their content confidential until they are accepted for publication. Only then can their title and authorship be disclosed.
Likewise, no member of the Editorial Board may use data, arguments or interpretations contained in unpublished works for their own research, unless they have the express written consent of the person or persons who carried it out.
2.1. decision to publish
All contributions will initially be evaluated by the Editorial Team. The Editorial Team is solely responsible for selecting, processing and deciding which of the articles submitted to the journal meets the editorial objectives and therefore could be published. Each paper considered suitable is sent to two independent referees or reviewers, experts in their field and capable of assessing the specific qualities of the work. The editor is responsible for the final decision on whether the document is accepted or rejected.
The decision to publish an article will always be measured by its relevance to researchers, professionals and potential readers. Editors should make impartial decisions regardless of commercial considerations.
Editors who make final decisions about manuscripts should withdraw from editorial decisions if they have conflicts of interest or relationships that represent potential problems with the articles under consideration. The responsibility for the final decision on publication should be assigned to a publisher who has no conflict of interest.
The editorial team reserves the right not to publish the work of those scholars who systematically refuse to collaborate with the journal in the task of evaluating the articles.
2.2 Review of work
The Editorial Board will ensure that the research papers published have been evaluated by at least two experts in the field and that the review process has been fair and impartial.
Reviewed articles are treated confidentially by members of the editorial team, members of the international scientific committee and reviewers
The Editorial Board will value and appreciate the contribution of those who collaborated in the evaluations of the articles submitted to the journal. It should disregard those who make poor quality, incorrect, disrespectful or late evaluations.
2.3 Identification and prevention of misconduct
Under no circumstances will the members of the editorial committee and the scientific committee encourage improper conduct of any kind or knowingly allow such improper conduct to occur.
Members of the editorial board and the international scientist will seek to avoid misconduct by informing authors and reviewers of the ethical behavior required of them.
Reviewers and members of scientific and editorial committees will be asked to take note of all types of misconduct in order to identify documents where misconduct has occurred or appears to have occurred in research of any kind and to handle complaints accordingly.
In case of misconduct, the editor of the journal is responsible for solving the problem. He or she may work together with members of editorial and scientific committees, peer reviewers and experts in the field.
The problem will be documented accordingly. All factual issues must be documented: who, what, when, where, why. All relevant documents should be kept, in particular the articles in question.
The editor of the journal will contact the author. In this way, the author has the opportunity to respond or comment on the complaint, allegation or dispute.
In the event that misconduct has occurred or appears to have occurred, or in the event of necessary corrections, the editorial board will address the various cases following the recommendations of the CEP and COPE.
Great care will be taken to distinguish cases of honest human error from deliberate intent to defraud.
The editorial board will consider withdrawing a publication in case of misconduct, or issuing a note in case of inconclusive evidence of misconduct, or requesting correction of the false segment.
RESPONSIBILITIES OF REVIEWERS
All reviewers should be aware and consider the editorial policy and statement of ethics and bad practice of the publication.
The journal will require potential reviewers to have significant scientific or working experience in a relevant field. They should have recently undertaken research and/or worked and gained recognized experience from their peers. Potential reviewers should provide personal and professional information that is accurate and fairly represents their experience.
In addition, all reviewers should withdraw if they know they are not qualified to evaluate a manuscript, feel that their evaluation of the material will not be objective, or consider themselves in a conflict of interest.
Reviewers should observe relevant published work that has not yet been cited in the reviewed material. If necessary, the editor may issue a request for correction for this purpose.
Reviewers are asked to identify documents where investigative misconduct has occurred or appears to have occurred and to inform the editorial board, which will handle each case accordingly.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST
Members of the editorial team and reviewers will withdraw in the event of a conflict of interest regarding an author or authors, or the content of a manuscript to be evaluated. Any conflict of interest between authors, reviewers and members of the editorial team and scientific committee will be avoided.
Editors and reviewers should withdraw from decision-making when:
There is a direct relationship between an author and a reviewer.
There is a recent and significant professional collaboration between reviewers and authors.
An editor or reviewer is a collaborator in the project being presented.
The editor or reviewer has a financial interest in a competing company or firm with a financial interest in the submission.
The editor or reviewer believes that he or she cannot be objective, either for personal reasons or because of a financial interest not covered by the policy.
