Políticas Editoriais

Foco e Escopo

Journal of Information Systems and Technology Management - ISSN:1807-1775 JISTEM USP tem a missão de difundir as pesquisas acadêmicas de alta qualidade e sólida estrutura metodológica sobre a Gestão dos Sistemas de Informação e das Tecnologias de Informação dentro de uma perspectiva multidisciplinar, em instituições privadas, publicas e na sociedade em geral.
A Politica Editorial da JISTEM USP privilegia a publicação de artigos científicos que abordem práticas e teorias nas suas áreas principais mas também na integração destas com outras áreas, através de pesquisas empíricas, estudos de casos, pesquisas exploratórias, entre outros.

 

Políticas de Seção

Contents

Não verificado Submissões abertas Verificado Indexado Não verificado Avaliado pelos pares

Articles

Verificado Submissões abertas Verificado Indexado Verificado Avaliado pelos pares

Book Reviews

Verificado Submissões abertas Verificado Indexado Verificado Avaliado pelos pares

Conference Report

Verificado Submissões abertas Verificado Indexado Não verificado Avaliado pelos pares

Editorial

Não verificado Submissões abertas Verificado Indexado Não verificado Avaliado pelos pares

Events

Verificado Submissões abertas Verificado Indexado Não verificado Avaliado pelos pares

Information

Verificado Submissões abertas Verificado Indexado Não verificado Avaliado pelos pares
 

Processo de Avaliação pelos Pares

Os artigos enviados para avaliação devem ser inéditos e não devem estar em processo de avaliação em nenhuma outra publicação. Os artigos devem estar em acordo com os objetivos propostos por esta revista. Os artigos enviados para avaliação da JISTEM USP são em primeira instância avaliados pelo editor. Se aceitos, são avaliados pelo Comitê Científico Editorial ou pareceristas ad hoc, com nível mínimo de Doutor, em double blind review. Uma cópia dos comentários dos revisores é enviada aos autores. Se aprovado, o artigo passa por aconselhamento editorial, revisão ortográfica e gramatical. O prazo estimado para o processo de avaliação é de dois a quatro meses.

 

Periodicidade

Atenção: Alteração na Politica Editorial referente a FORMATO DE PUBLICAÇÃO, ocorrida em Janeiro de 2018

O Conselho Editorial do Journal of Information Systems and Technology Management - JISTEM USP, implementou desde primeiro de janeiro de 2018 o formato de PUBLICAÇÃO CONTÍNUA, com as seguintes características:

- 1(um ) Volume Anual, sem divisão em edições. Cada artigo aprovado é publicado imediatamente, sem a necessidade de aguardar a formação de uma edição. Tal mudança está baseada em sólidas razões técnicas e estratégicas e acompanha as melhores práticas internacionais.

- O volume correspondente ao ano de 2018 é o volume 15.

 

Política de Acesso Livre

Esta revista oferece acesso livre imediato ao seu conteúdo, seguindo o princípio de que disponibilizar gratuitamente o conhecimento científico ao público proporciona maior democratização mundial do conhecimento.

 

Index and Directories

SciELO, ISI citation index, Latindex, Proquest, Ulrich's Periodical Directory, DOAJ, The Index of Information Systems Journals, ACPHIS, Dialnet, Ebsco, Gale Infotrac, Portal de Periódicos USP, CAPES, Spell, PKP, CLASE

 

Intelectual Property - Propriedade Intelectual

All content of the journal, except where identified, is licensed under a Creative Commons attribution-type BY-NC.

 

Conflict of interest statement - Declaração de Conflito de Interesses

Declaração de Conflito de Interesses

Há conflito de interesses quando um autor (ou a instituição do autor), revisor ou editor tem relações financeiras ou pessoais que influenciem de forma inapropriada (viés) suas ações.
Quando houver algum relacionamento entre os autores e entidade pública ou provada que pode acarretar algum conflito de interesses, esta possibilidade deve ser declarada na página título do manuscrito e na carta de submissão ao editor.
Se não houver conflito de interesses, o autor deve assim declarar.
O revisor deve declarar se tem ou não tem nenhum interesse comercial ou associativo que represente conflito de interesses em conexão ao trabalho submetido.
Reviewers must confirm:
I. There have been no involvements that might raise the question of bias in the work reported or in the conclusions, implications, or opinions stated.
II. Conflict of interest statement. Sample statement: I hold stock* in [business name], the makers of [product], and am currently conducting
research sponsored by this company. I am also a member of the speakers' bureau for [business name].

 

Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement

"Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement".

JISTEM USP uses the system iThenticate as to analyse the text and to identify plagiarism and similarity of manuscripts.

1. All submitted manuscripts are subject to strict peer-review process. High quality manuscripts are peer-reviewed by minimum two peers of the same field. Since its beginning in January 2004, JISTEM USP Journal follows double blind fold review policy to ensure neutral evaluation. During this review process identity of both the authors and reviewers are kept hidden to ensure unbiased evaluation. This transparent process will help to eradicate any possible malicious/purposeful interference by any person (publishing staff, reviewer, editor, author, etc) during peer review. As a result of this unique system all reviewers will get their due recognition and respect, once their names are published once a year in proper section of the last issue of each year. If reviewers do not want to reveal their identities, we will honor that request.

2. The factors that are taken into account in review are relevance, soundness, significance, originality, readability and language. JISTEM USP believes that no manuscript should be rejected only on the basis of ‘lack of Novelty’, provided the manuscript is sufficiently robust and technically sound. Too often a journal's decision to publish a paper is dominated by what the Editor/reviewer think is interesting and will gain greater readership — both of which are subjective judgments and lead to decisions which are frustrating and delay the publication. JISTEM USP Journal will rigorously peer-review your submissions and publish all papers that are judged to be technically sound. Judgments about the importance of any particular paper are then made after publication by the readership (who are the most qualified to determine what is of interest to them).

3. With the help of the reviewers’ comments, FINAL decision (accepted or accepted with minor revision or accepted with major revision or rejected) will be sent to the corresponding author. Reviewers are asked if they would like to review a revised version of the manuscript. The editorial office may request a re-review regardless of a reviewer's response in order to ensure a thorough and fair evaluation. Reviewers who may have offered an opinion not in accordance with the FINAL decision should not feel that their recommendation was not duly considered and their service not properly appreciated. Experts often disagree, and it is the job of the editorial team to make a FINAL decision.

4. If authors are encouraged to revise and resubmit a submission, there is no guarantee that the revised submission will be accepted.

5. Rejected papers are given the opportunity for a formal appeal. Appeal requests should be made in writing, not by telephone, and should be addressed to jistem@usp.br the word "appeal" in the subject line. If an author remains unsatisfied, he or she can write to the Editorial Office, citing the manuscript reference number. In all these cases, it is likely that some time will elapse before JISTEM USP can respond, and the paper must not be submitted for publication elsewhere during this time. Authors should provide detailed reasons for the appeal and point-by-point responses to the reviewers' and/or Academic Editor's comments. Authors should also be aware that priority is given to new submissions to the journal and so the processing of the appeal may well take longer than the processing of the original submission. If an appeal is rejected, further appeals of the decision will not be considered and the paper may not be resubmitted.

6. Articles may be rejected without review if the Editor considers the article obviously not suitable for publication.

7. The editor of the journal is responsible for deciding which of the articles submitted to the journal should be published.

8. The editor may be guided by the policies of the journal's editorial board and constrained by such legal requirements as shall then be in force regarding libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism.

9. The editor confers with other editors or reviewers in making this decision.

10. The reviewers evaluate manuscripts for their intellectual content without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the authors.

11. The editorial staff must not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher, as appropriate.

12. Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Referees should express their views clearly with supporting arguments. JISTEM USP believes in constructive criticism. Reviewers are encouraged to be honest but not offensive in their language (Unnecessarily harsh words may be modified or removed at the editors' discretion). It is expected that the reviewers should suggest the authors on how they can strengthen their paper to make it acceptable. Comments of the reviewers should be sufficiently informative and helpful to reach an Editorial Decision. We strongly advise that a negative review should also explain the weaknesses of any manuscript, so that the concerned authors can understand the basis of rejection and he/she can improve the manuscript based on those comments. Authors also should not confuse straightforward and true comments with unfair criticism.

13. Peer review assists the editor in making editorial decisions. Additionally we believe that one of the main objectives of peer review system is ‘to improve the quality of a candidate manuscript’.

14. Manuscripts received for review are treated as confidential documents.

15. A reviewer should also call to the editor's attention for any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge.

16. Authors of contributions and studies research should present an accurate account of the work performed as well as an objective discussion of its significance.

17. Sufficient details of the methods/process should be provided inside the manuscript so that another researcher is able to reproduce the experiments described. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable.

18. The authors should ensure that they have written entirely original works, and if the authors have used the work and/or words of others that this has been appropriately cited or quoted. JISTEM USP international strongly opposes the practice of duplicate publication or any type of plagiarism. If you suspect any unethical practice in this manuscript, kindly write it in the report with some proof/web links. Studies which are carried out to reconfirm / replicate the results of any previously published paper with new data-set, may be considered for publication. But these types of studies should have a ‘clear declaration’ of this matter. Self-plagiarism, also referred to as ‘text recycling’, . We normally follow the guidelines given in COPE website. Editors, reviewers and authors are also requested to strictly follow this excellent guideline (Reference: Text Recycling Guidelines: http://publicationethics.org/text-recycling-guidelines). Plagiarized manuscripts would not be considered for publication. If plagiarism is found in any published paper after internal investigation, a letter would be immediately sent to all the authors, their affiliated institutes and funding agency, if applied and subsequently the paper will be retracted.

19. Authors should not publish manuscripts describing essentially the same research in more than one journal or primary publication.

20. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable.

21. Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the reported study. Submission of a paper to this journal indicates that the author(s) have agreed the content of the paper. One author should be indicated as corresponding author for all publication related communications. All correspondence and proofs would be sent to the corresponding author, who will be treated as final representative voice for all authors regarding any decision related to manuscript, unless otherwise requested during submission. This journal would not be responsible for any dispute related to authorship of a submitted paper. Any change in the authorship (such as addition or deletion of author(s) or change in the sequence of author list) should be intimated to the editorial office through a letter signed by all authors before publication of the paper. In absence of any signed letter, approval of 'Galley proof' by corresponding author will work as 'certificate of final agreement of authorship'. Generally any change in the authorship after final publication, is not entertained and COPE guidelines are followed for any dispute.

22. All sources of financial support for the project should be disclosed.

23. 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 editor or publisher and cooperate with the editor to retract or correct the paper.

24. JISTEM USP Journal is published in ONLINE only. Authors should note that no hard copy will be published in order to minimize the additional carbon footprint, resulting from printing on papers.

25. The study has not been published (partly or as a whole) before or is not under consideration for publication elsewhere (except as an abstract or as part of a published lecture or academic thesis); We will consider manuscripts that have been deposited in preprint servers such as archive or published in institutional repositories. We will also consider work that has been presented at conferences (Significant amount of changes should be made before submission to the journal and proper citation of the conference paper is required).

26. It is compulsory for the authors to ensure that no material submitted as part of a manuscript infringes existing copyrights, or the rights of a third party.

27. Journal is determined to promote integrity in research publication. We have great respect and we generally follow the guidelines, given by COMMITTEE ON PUBLICATION ETHICS (COPE) for any publication disputes, authorship disputes, etc. For these kinds of disputes, we generally visit and follow the COPE website and author(s) are also requested to do so. Excellent guidelines, related to COPE’s Code of Conduct and its advice to tackle cases of suspected misconduct, are available in this link (http://publicationethics.org/resources/flowcharts).

28. The copyrights of all papers published in this journal are retained by the respective authors as per the 'Creative Commons Attribution License' (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/). The author(s) should be the sole author(s) of the article and should have full authority to enter into agreement and in granting rights to JISTEM USP international, which are not in breach of any other obligation. The author(s) should ensure the integrity of the paper and related works. Authors should mandatorily ensure that submission of manuscript to JISTEM USP international would result into no breach of contract or of confidence or of commitment given to secrecy.

29. The research must meet all applicable standards for the ethics of experimentation and research integrity.

 

Retraction Guidelines - COPE Version 1, September 2009

This journal follows the retraction guidelines as published by COPE, version 1,September 2009 which Summary is shown here:
"Journal editors should consider retracting a publication if:
• they have clear evidence that the findings are unreliable, either as a result of misconduct (e.g. data fabrication)
or honest error (e.g. miscalculation or experimental error)
• the findings have previously been published elsewhere without proper crossreferencing, permission or
justification (i.e. cases of redundant publication)
• it constitutes plagiarism
• it reports unethical research
Journal editors should consider issuing an expression of concern if:
• they receive inconclusive evidence of research or publication misconduct by the authors
• there is evidence that the findings are unreliable but the authors’ institution will not investigate the case
• they believe that an investigation into alleged misconduct related to the publication either has not been,
or would not be, fair and impartial or conclusive
• an investigation is underway but a judgement will not be available for a considerable time
Journal editors should consider issuing a correction if:
• a small portion of an otherwise reliable publication proves to be misleading (especially because of honest
error)
• the author / contributor list is incorrect (i.e. a deserving author has been omitted or somebody who does
not meet authorship criteria has been included)
Retractions are not usually appropriate if:
• a change of authorship is required but there is no reason to doubt the validity of the findings
Notices of retraction should:
• be linked to the retracted article wherever possible (i.e. in all electronic versions)
• clearly identify the retracted article (e.g. by including the title and authors in the retraction heading)
• be clearly identified as a retraction (i.e. distinct from other types of correction or comment)
• be published promptly to minimize harmful effects from misleading publications
WWW.PUBLICATIONETHICS.ORG
RETRACTION GUIDELINES
• be freely available to all readers (i.e. not behind access barriers or available only to subscribers)
• state who is retracting the article
• state the reason(s) for retraction (to distinguish misconduct from honest error)
• avoid statements that are potentially defamatory or libellous"