Ethical Guidelines

Ethical Guidelines (Publication Ethics)

1. DUTIES OF THE PUBLISHER

1.1 Introduction to Ethical Policies

Publication Ethics is a formal component of the academic communication system, meaning that the publication of an article in a peer-reviewed academic journal serves many purposes beyond mere communication.

It is a building block in the development of a coherent and respected knowledge network. It is primary evidence of the quality and impact of the research work of its authors and, by extension, the institutions that support them. It supports, and is itself an example of, the scientific method.

For all these reasons and more, it is important to establish standards of ethical behavior expected from all parties involved in the act of publication: the author, the journal editor, the reviewer, the publisher, and the society owning or sponsoring the journal.

These guidelines were specifically developed for primary research journals but may also be relevant for reviews and other professional publications.

1.2 Stewardship of Academic Record

These guidelines have been written with all these requirements in mind, especially recognizing that it is a crucial role of the Publisher to support the tremendous efforts made by Journal Editors and the often unrecognized volunteer work of peer reviewers in maintaining the integrity of the scholarly record.

Although ethical codes inevitably focus on infractions that sometimes occur, it is a testament to academic practice that the system functions so well and that problems are relatively rare. The publisher has a supportive, investment, and incentive role in the academic communication process, but it is also responsible for ensuring that best practices are followed in its publications.

Reativar Ambiental, as the publisher responsible for the Revista Brasileira de Meio Ambiente, takes its stewardship duties over the academic record extremely seriously. We register articles and recognize our responsibilities as guardians of these documents in all our policies, including the ethical guidelines adopted here.

Reativar Ambiental adopts these policies and procedures to support editors, reviewers, and authors in performing their ethical duties following these guidelines. We work with other publishers and industry associations to define standards of best practices on ethical issues, errors, and retractions.

1.3 Protection of Editorial Independence

We are committed to ensuring that potential advertising, reprints, or other commercial revenue does not impact or influence editorial decisions.

1.4 Best Editorial Practices

We promote best practices by offering editors membership in the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) as well as encouraging the reading and adherence to the San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA).

Furthermore, we always guide editors on the necessity of article verification and training courses.

1.5 Provision of Technical, Procedural, and Legal Support

We support editors in communications with other journals and/or publishers where it is beneficial to editors and are prepared to provide expert legal review and advice if necessary.

1.6 Provision of Technical Support for New Researchers

We provide training, recommendations, and extensive advice on ethical publishing standards, especially for early-career researchers.

1.7 Submission of New Indexing Applications

We guide and standardize important aspects of research ethics over time for partner journals and those that request our support so that they can achieve notable indexations.

These guidelines are shared across the entire journal structure, ensuring higher quality in articles, reviews, and publications.

2. DUTIES OF EDITORS

2.1 Impartial Publication Decisions

The Editor of an academic journal is solely and independently responsible for deciding which articles submitted to the journal should be published, often working in conjunction with the relevant society (for society-owned or sponsored journals).

The validation of the work in question and its importance to researchers and readers must always underpin such decisions. The Editor may be guided by the policies of the journal’s Editorial Board and constrained by legal requirements regarding issues such as defamation, copyright infringement, and plagiarism.

The Editor may consult other Editors or Reviewers (or society directors) when making such decisions. Impartiality in both subject matter and decision-making must be observed, with respect and fairness in line with academic and social policies.

2.2 Impartial Peer Reviews

The editor must ensure that the peer review process is fair, impartial, and timely. Research articles should typically be reviewed by at least two external and independent reviewers, and when necessary, the Editor should seek additional opinions.

The Editor must select reviewers with appropriate expertise in the relevant field, considering the need for adequate, inclusive, and diverse representation.

The Editor should follow best practices to avoid the selection of fraudulent reviewers. The Editor should review all disclosures of potential conflicts of interest and self-citation suggestions made by reviewers to determine if there is any potential bias.

2.3 Fair Play in Science (Editor’s Role)

The editor must evaluate manuscripts based on their intellectual content without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the authors.

When appointing potential editorial board members, the editor should consider the need for adequate, inclusive, and diverse representation.

Journal editorial policies should encourage transparency and complete, honest reporting, and the editor should ensure that reviewers and authors have a clear understanding of what is expected of them. The editor must use the journal’s standard electronic submission system for all journal communications.

The Editor must establish, along with the Reviewer - Evaluator, a transparent mechanism for appealing editorial decisions.

2.4 Recommendations Against Metric Influence

The Editor should not attempt to influence the journal’s ranking by artificially increasing any journal metrics.

In particular, the editor should not require references to their (or any other) journal article to be included, except for genuine academic reasons. Authors should not be required to include references to the editor’s own articles or products and services in which the editor has an interest.

2.5 Editor Confidentiality

The editor must protect the confidentiality of all material submitted to the journal and all communications with reviewers unless otherwise agreed upon with the relevant authors and reviewers.

In exceptional circumstances and in consultation with the editor, limited information may be shared with editors of other journals, institutions, and organizations investigating cases of research misconduct when deemed necessary to investigate suspected ethical violations.

Unless the journal operates an open peer review system and/or reviewers have agreed to disclose their names, the editor must protect reviewer identities. The Revista Brasileira de Meio Ambiente ensures reviewer anonymity.

Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript should not be used in the editor’s own research without the author's explicit written consent. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage.

2.6 On the Use of AI (Artificial Intelligence) and Editorial Decisions

This policy was triggered by the emergence of generative AI and AI-assisted technologies* and aims to provide greater transparency and guidance to authors, editors, and reviewers. Reativar Ambiental will closely monitor ongoing developments in this area and adjust or refine the policy as appropriate. The following guidance is specifically for editors.

A submitted manuscript must be treated as a confidential document. Editors should not upload a submitted manuscript or any part of it to a generative AI tool, as this may violate the confidentiality and proprietary rights of the authors and, where the article contains personally identifiable information, may violate data privacy rights.

This confidentiality requirement extends to all communications regarding the manuscript, including any notifications or decision letters, as they may contain confidential information about the manuscript and/or authors. For this reason, editors should not submit their letters to an AI tool, even if only to improve language and readability.

Peer review is at the core of the scientific ecosystem, and the Revista Brasileira de Meio Ambiente adheres to the highest standards of integrity in this process. Managing the editorial evaluation of a scientific manuscript involves responsibilities that can only be assigned to humans. Generative AI or AI-assisted technologies should not be used by editors to assist in evaluating or making decisions about a manuscript, as the critical thinking and original assessment required for this work are beyond the scope of this technology, and there is a risk that the technology will generate incorrect, incomplete, or biased conclusions about the manuscript. The editor is responsible for the editorial process, the final decision, and its communication to the authors.

The RVBMA AI author policy states that authors are allowed to use generative AI and AI-assisted technologies in the writing process before submission, but only to improve the language and readability of their article and with proper disclosure, following our instructions in the Guide for Authors. Editors may find such disclosure at the end of the article in a separate section before the reference list. If an editor suspects that an author or reviewer has violated our AI policies, they should inform the editor-in-chief.

A violation occurs when an author uses AI to generate sentences on their behalf, implying that the content was created by a human and not by a machine.

Generative AI is a type of artificial intelligence technology that can produce various types of content, including text, images, audio, and synthetic data. Examples include ChatGPT, NovelAI, Jasper AI, Rytr AI, DALL-E, etc.

2.7 Declaration of Conflicting Interests of the Editor

Any potential editorial conflicts of interest must be disclosed to the editor in writing before the editor’s appointment and updated if and when new conflicts arise. The editor may publish such declarations in the journal.

The editor should not be involved in decisions regarding articles they have written themselves or those written by family members or colleagues, or that relate to products or services in which the editor has an interest. Additionally, any submission should be subject to the journal’s usual procedures, peer review should be handled independently from the relevant author/editor and their research groups, and there should be a clear statement regarding this in any published article.

2.8 Surveillance of the Published Record

The editor should work to safeguard the integrity of the published record by reviewing and evaluating allegations or suspicions of misconduct (research, publication, review, and editorial), in conjunction with the editor (or society).

Such measures will generally include contacting the author of the manuscript or article and giving due attention to the respective complaint or claims made, but may also include additional communication with the relevant institutions and research bodies. The editor should also make appropriate use of the publisher’s systems for detecting misconduct, such as plagiarism.

An editor presented with compelling evidence of misconduct should coordinate with the editor (and/or society) to arrange for the immediate publication of a correction, retraction, expression of concern, or other amendment to the record, as may be relevant.

2.9 Retraction and Errata

Retractions are formal statements issued by scientific or academic journals when a published article contains significant errors, false information, plagiarism, or other issues that undermine its credibility or scientific integrity.

Retractions are used to correct incorrect or questionable information and to notify the scientific community of the flaws found in the work. When a journal issues a retraction, it is typically published in the journal itself, accompanied by an explanation of the issues found in the article.

Depending on the severity of the error, the retraction may vary in its extent and impact. In more serious cases, the retraction may lead to the complete removal of the article from the publication.

Errata are minor corrections or adjustments to scientific articles that do not significantly compromise their scientific validity but still need to be rectified to avoid confusion or misunderstanding. These errors may include, for example, typographical mistakes, errors in tables or charts, incorrect citations, and small inaccuracies.

Unlike retractions, which generally involve more serious issues, errata are used to correct relatively minor problems that do not drastically affect the results or conclusions of the work. Both retractions and errata are important to maintain the integrity of the scientific literature and ensure the accuracy of the information available to the academic community. Journals take these corrections seriously to preserve the credibility of their publications and to ensure that science advances in a reliable and responsible manner.

It is the editor’s responsibility to issue retractions and errata if necessary.

2.10 Request for Indexing (Editors)

It is the editor’s responsibility, under recommendations from the publisher or other editors of the journal, to seek new indexing for the journal, giving scientific credibility in the face of databases and countries that may publish in it.

2.11 Exceptional Situations (Decision-Making for Exceptional Cases)

2.11.1 What the journal will do if it suspects redundant publication (duplicate). Suspicion of redundant publication in a submitted manuscript:

2.11.2 What the journal will do if it suspects redundant publication (duplicate). Suspicion of redundant publication in a published manuscript:

2.11.3 What the journal will do if it suspects academic plagiarism in submitted works. Suspicion of plagiarism in a submitted manuscript:

2.11.4 What the journal will do if it suspects plagiarism in a published manuscript. Suspicion of plagiarism in a published manuscript:

2.11.5 What the journal will do if it suspects fabricated data – not real. Suspicion of fabricated data in a submitted manuscript:

2.11.6 What the journal will do if it suspects fabricated data in published articles. Suspicion of fabricated data in a published manuscript:

2.11.7 Changes in authorship: Corresponding author requests addition/removal of extra author before publication.

2.11.8 Changes in authorship: Request for addition/removal of extra author after publication.

3. DUTIES OF REVIEWERS

3.1 Reviewers’ Contributions to Editorial Decisions

Peer review assists the editor in making editorial decisions, and through editorial communications with the author, it can also help the author improve the article.

Peer review is an essential component of formal academic communication and is at the heart of the scientific method. Besides the specific ethical duties described below, reviewers should generally treat authors and their work as they would like to be treated themselves and adhere to good reviewing etiquette.

Any selected reviewer who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that an immediate review will be impossible should notify the editor and decline to participate in the review process. This is the reviewer’s primary contribution to Editorial Decisions.

3.2 Reviewers’ Confidentiality

Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. Reviewers should not share the review or any information about the article with anyone or contact the authors directly without the editor’s permission.

Some editors encourage discussion with colleagues or co-reviewing exercises, but reviewers should first discuss this with the editor to ensure confidentiality is maintained and that participants receive appropriate credit.

Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript should not be used in a reviewer’s own research without the express written consent of the author. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and should not be used for personal advantage.

3.3 The Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in the Review Process

This policy was triggered by the emergence of generative AI and AI-assisted technologies* and aims to provide greater transparency and guidance to authors, editors, and reviewers. The Revista Brasileira de Meio Ambiente will closely monitor ongoing developments in this area and adjust or refine the policy as appropriate. The following guidance is specifically for reviewers.

When a researcher is invited to review another researcher’s article, the manuscript must be treated as a confidential document. Reviewers should not upload a submitted manuscript or any part of it to a generative AI tool, as this may violate the confidentiality and proprietary rights of the authors and, where the article contains personally identifiable information, may violate data privacy rights.

This confidentiality requirement extends to the peer review report, as it may contain confidential information about the manuscript and/or authors. For this reason, reviewers should not upload their peer review report to an AI tool, even if only to improve language and readability.

Peer review is at the core of the scientific ecosystem, and the Revista Brasileira de Meio Ambiente adheres to the highest standards of integrity in this process. Reviewing a scientific manuscript implies responsibilities that can only be assigned to humans.

Generative AI or AI-assisted technologies should not be used by reviewers to assist in the scientific review of an article, as the critical thinking and original evaluation required for peer review are beyond the scope of this technology, and there is a risk that the technology will generate incorrect, incomplete, or biased conclusions about the manuscript. The reviewer is responsible for the content of the review report.

3.4 Alert for Ethical Issues

A reviewer should be alert to potential ethical issues in the article and bring them to the editor’s attention, including any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published article of which the reviewer has personal knowledge.

Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument has been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation.

3.5 Objective Standards in Review

Reviews should be conducted objectively. Reviewers should be aware of any personal bias they may have and take this into account when reviewing an article. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Reviewers should express their opinions clearly with supporting arguments.

Reviewers should consult the Editor before agreeing to review an article in which they have potential conflicts of interest arising from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions associated with the articles.

3.6 Recommendations for Current Research

If a reviewer suggests that an author includes citations to the reviewer’s work (or that of their associates), it should be for genuine scientific reasons and not intended to increase the reviewer’s citation count or enhance the visibility of their work (or that of their associates). The suggestion of current citations is recommended, provided it respects the subject and the available, widely accessible databases.

Respecting the San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA), the Revista Brasileira de Meio Ambiente does not require, in its submission model, the use of articles from journals with an Impact Factor (IF). Moreover, the indexing of accepted articles in other databases encourages readers and researchers to explore alternative sources (and consequently, other metrics).

4. DUTIES OF AUTHORS

4.1 Provide Consolidated and Concise Documents

Authors of original research articles must present an accurate report of the work carried out, as well as an objective discussion of its significance. The underlying data must be represented accurately in the paper.

An article should contain sufficient details and references to allow others to replicate the work. Fraudulent or intentionally inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable.

Review articles and professional publications should also be accurate and objective, and editorial 'opinion' pieces, when invited by the Brazilian Journal of Environment, should be clearly identified as such.

4.2 Adhere to Journal Guidelines

The Brazilian Journal of Environment values quality, and the journal's guidelines are part of this quality system.

Mandatory documents as outlined in the Author's Guide and Author Guidelines, such as the article’s alignment with the General Model of the Journal and the attachment of the supplementary letter with the article's personal information, must be considered at submission.

Articles that do not comply with submission guidelines are not eligible for evaluation.

4.3 Follow the Submission Process via Email and Journal Platform

Authors should follow the editorial processes, such as receiving emails, editorial decisions within the platform, and evaluator attachments both within the journal’s platform and via email.

Deadlines for returning corrected versions and other additional document requests are also the authors’ responsibility, especially the corresponding author.

It is the author’s sole responsibility to monitor the arrival of emails in their inbox, including checking spam, junk mail, or any other folder where emails may be filtered.

4.4 Access and Retention of Research Data

Authors may be asked to provide research data supporting their article for editorial review and/or to meet the journal's open data requirements.

Authors should be prepared to provide public access to this data if possible and should retain this data for a reasonable number of years after publication.

4.5 Originality and Source Recognition

Authors must ensure that they have written entirely original work, and if the authors have used others’ work and/or words, it must be properly cited or quoted, and permission obtained when necessary.

Proper recognition of others’ work should always be given. Authors must cite publications that influenced the reported work and give the work the appropriate context within the broader academic record. Information obtained in particular, such as in conversation, correspondence, or discussion with third parties, should not be used or reported without explicit written permission from the source.

Plagiarism takes many forms, from 'passing off' another person's article as one’s own, to copying or paraphrasing substantial parts of another person’s article (without attribution), to claiming research results conducted by others. Plagiarism in all its forms constitutes unethical behavior and is unacceptable.

4.6 Multiple, Redundant, or Concurrent Publication

The author should generally not publish manuscripts describing essentially the same research in more than one primary publication journal. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal simultaneously constitutes unethical behavior and is unacceptable.

In general, an author should not submit an article for consideration in another journal if it has already been published, except as an abstract, part of a published lecture or thesis, or as an electronic preprint.

Publishing some types of articles (e.g., clinical guidelines, translations) in more than one journal may sometimes be justified, provided certain conditions are met. The authors and editors of the relevant journals must agree on secondary publication, which should reflect the same data and interpretation as the primary document. The primary reference should be cited in the secondary publication.

4.7 Author Confidentiality

Information obtained during confidential services, such as manuscript review, proof reading, editorial decisions, or other requests, should not be used without explicit written permission from the author or editor involved in those services.

4.8 Article Authorship and Contributions

Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the study reported. All those who have made substantial contributions should be listed as co-authors.

Where others have contributed to specific aspects of the article (e.g., language editing or medical writing), they should be acknowledged in the acknowledgements section.

The corresponding author should ensure that all appropriate co-authors and no inappropriate co-authors are included in the article, and that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the article and agreed to submit it for publication.

Authors are expected to carefully consider the list and order of authors before submitting their manuscript and provide the final list of authors at the time of original submission.

Only in exceptional circumstances will the Editor consider (at their discretion) the addition, deletion, or rearrangement of authors after manuscript submission, and the author should clearly signal such a request to the Editor. All authors must agree to any additions, removals, or rearrangements.

Authors assume collective responsibility for the work. Each individual author is responsible for ensuring that any issues related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are properly investigated and resolved.

4.9 Inappropriate Use of Citations (Academic Plagiarism)

Plagiarism takes many forms, from 'passing off' another person's article as one's own, to copying or paraphrasing substantial parts of another person's article (without attribution), to claiming research results conducted by others.

Plagiarism in all its forms constitutes unethical behavior and is unacceptable. The Brazilian Journal of Environment has a zero-tolerance policy for plagiarism in submissions. The Editorial Decision will be Immediate Rejection for plagiarism.

Both small and large plagiarism cases are treated the same, with no possibility for resubmission. It should be emphasized that academic journals are not universities, schools, or scientific methodology disciplines to point out plagiarism and still favor an article that maintains unethical aspects over one that does not. It is crucial that the submitted research is free of such issues.

The journal maintains a dual process of plagiarism detection in articles.

4.10 Use of Artificial Intelligence in Scientific Writing

This policy was triggered by the emergence of generative AI and AI-assisted technologies, which are increasingly used by content creators. The policy aims to provide greater transparency and guidance to authors, readers, reviewers, editors, and collaborators.

The Brazilian Journal of Environment will monitor this development and adjust or refine the policy as appropriate. Note that the policy only refers to the writing process and not to the use of AI tools to analyze and extract information from data as part of the research process.

The Brazilian Journal of Environment does not allow the use of AI for text production, particularly scientific writing. Authors who use generative AI and AI-assisted technologies in the writing process should use them only to improve the readability and language of the already written work.

The application of technology should be done under human supervision and control, and authors should carefully review and edit the result, as AI can generate output that sounds authoritative but may be incorrect, incomplete, or biased. Authors are ultimately responsible for the content of the work.

Authors should disclose in their manuscript the use of AI and AI-assisted technologies, and a statement will appear in the published work. Declaring the use of these technologies supports transparency and trust between authors, readers, reviewers, editors, and collaborators and facilitates compliance with the relevant tool or technology's terms of use.

We do not accept research written by AI because there are inherent documentary responsibilities with humans. Authors should not list AI or AI-assisted technologies as authors or co-authors, nor cite AI as the author. Authorship involves responsibilities and tasks that can only be attributed and executed by humans.

Each (co-)author is responsible for ensuring that issues related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are properly investigated and resolved, and authorship requires the ability to approve the final version of the work and agree to its submission. Authors are also responsible for ensuring that the work is original, that the declared authors qualify for authorship, and that the work does not infringe on third-party rights, and should familiarize themselves with our publication ethics policy before submission.

4.11 Use of AI for Figures, Images, Tables, and Others

We do not allow the use of generative AI or AI-assisted tools to create or alter images in submitted manuscripts. This includes enhancing, obscuring, moving, removing, or introducing a specific feature in an image or figure.

Adjustments to brightness, contrast, or color balance are acceptable as long as they do not obscure or eliminate any information present in the original.

Forensic image tools or specialized software may be applied to submitted manuscripts to detect potential image irregularities.

The only exception is if the use of AI or AI-assisted tools is part of the research design or research methods (such as AI-assisted imaging approaches to generate or interpret underlying research data, e.g., in the field of biomedical imaging). If this is the case, such use must be described reproducibly in the methods section.

This should include an explanation of how AI or AI-assisted tools were used in the creation or alteration of the image, along with the model or tool name, version, and extension numbers and manufacturer. Authors should adhere to specific AI software usage policies and ensure proper attribution of the content. When applicable, authors may be asked to provide pre-adjusted versions of images and/or the raw composite images used to create the final submitted versions for editorial review.

Generative AI or AI-assisted tools are not permitted for creating artwork, such as journal covers or graphical abstracts.

4.12 Human or Animal Hazards (Ethics Committee)

The Brazilian Journal of Environment is very attentive to procedures involving animals and humans in research. Therefore, in the Supplementary Letter/Document, authors are asked whether any manipulation was involved in research with humans or animals.

If the work involves chemicals, procedures, or equipment with inherent risks in their use, the author must clearly identify them in the manuscript. The recommended section for this notice is the Methodology (Materials and Methods).

If the work involves the use of animals or humans, the author must ensure that the manuscript contains a statement that all procedures were carried out in compliance with relevant institutional laws and guidelines and that appropriate institutional committees approved them.

The Supplementary Letter includes a statement where authors declare in the manuscript and outside it that informed consent was obtained for experiments involving humans. Privacy rights of human subjects must always be respected. Ethical approval for animal research must be obtained from relevant committees.

4.13 Manuscript Handling Process and Appeal

The author must understand the process that follows manuscript submission. If the manuscript is rejected, the author must respect the decision. When a manuscript is rejected, the evaluation, decision, and reviewer comments are made available for feedback on the platform. The editor’s decision is final.

If the manuscript is revised, the author will be informed via the platform, and feedback must be addressed appropriately and promptly. Only one resubmission is allowed, unless new major additions are requested.

4.14 Disclosure of Conflicts of Interest

If any potential conflicts of interest exist (e.g., funding sources, financial interests in related products or organizations), authors must disclose these upon submission and within the manuscript. This includes financial, personal, or professional relationships that may influence or bias the author’s judgment.

The corresponding author is responsible for ensuring that all relevant conflicts of interest are disclosed in the manuscript.

4.15 Financial Support and Acknowledgments

If there was financial support for the research or preparation of the manuscript, this must be disclosed in the acknowledgment section. The author must also acknowledge all contributors who do not meet the criteria for authorship but who assisted in the research process, such as technical support or writing assistance.

The ethical guidelines of the Revista Brasileira de Meio Ambiente are primarily based on Elsevier's ethics document (https://www.elsevier.com/about/policies/publishing-ethics#Authors). They also align with the declaration of best publishing practices and journal management based on the Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors from the Committee on Publication Ethics - COPE (available at http://publicationethics.org/) and the DORA Declaration (https://sfdora.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/DORA_Brazilian-Portuguese.pdf).

Click here to return to the homepage ||| Click here to go back to the Author Guidelines.

CiteScore

QUALIS

Search

Language

Brazilian Journal of Enviromnent

Ethical Guidelines (Publication Ethics)

1. DUTIES OF THE PUBLISHER

2. DUTIES OF THE EDITORS

3. DUTIES OF THE REVIEWERS

4. DUTIES OF THE AUTHORS