1. Commitment and responsibilities
Lex Humana safeguards the integrity of the scholarly record. This policy applies to submitted manuscripts and published work. Decisions are based on scholarly merit and journal policies, without discrimination or influence from commercial revenue. Editors and reviewers preserve confidentiality, substantiate their assessments, acknowledge their limitations and do not use unpublished material for personal benefit without written permission.
2. Authorship, originality and intellectual property
Authors must have contributed substantially, approved the final version and accepted responsibility for the work. Relevant contributions must be acknowledged; adding or removing authors requires reasons and documented agreement from those concerned. Unresolved authorship disputes may be referred to competent institutions. Plagiarism, undisclosed redundant publication, citation manipulation and fabrication or falsification of data, sources, results or references are prohibited. Citations must be relevant; acceptance must not depend on citations intended solely to inflate metrics. Authors must obtain permissions, identify third-party material and observe the journal’s copyright and LLM policies. Similarity or automated detection reports are indicators to examine, not standalone proof of misconduct.
3. Conflicts of interest and independence
Authors, reviewers, editors and board members must disclose relevant financial, professional, institutional or personal interests and funding. Anyone with a conflict must not assess or decide the case. Complaints involving the editor or their conduct are referred to the Editorial Board without participation by those involved. The Board may seek independent, conflict-free advice.
Articles by editors, board members and guest editors undergo regular review, with author recusal from reviewer selection, handling and decisions on their article. A non-conflicted editor handles the process; if the journal’s responsible editor must recuse themselves, a non-conflicted board member designates an independent handling editor, who may be external. Assignments, recusals and reasoned decisions are recorded in the system. If published, the conflict statement identifies the author’s role and independent handling without revealing reviewers. Thematic collections require prior approval and follow the same requirements under editorial supervision. Conflicting reports are not votes: the editor reasons the decision and may request clarification, revisions or an additional independent report. Reconsideration requests follow the appeal procedure in this policy.
4. Ethical oversight in philosophy and law
Purely theoretical, bibliographical, philosophical, doctrinal or public-source research does not automatically require ethics committee approval. Research involving human participants, interviews, personal data, confidential documents or vulnerable persons must describe safeguards and ethical approval, consent or grounds for exemption under the applicable rules. Authors must respect privacy, confidentiality and third-party rights, including in legal proceedings and documents. The editor may request supporting evidence before proceeding.
5. Sources, materials and verifiability
Authors must accurately identify works, editions, documents, legislation, judgments and other sources, explain their method and enable verification of arguments. Empirical studies must state the availability of data, instruments and materials, preferably through a repository or justified request. Restrictions arising from privacy, confidentiality, copyright or legal duties must be explained. This policy does not require unlawful disclosure or the creation of datasets for theoretical work. The journal may request materials necessary for confidential assessment with limited access.
6. Complaints and appeals: submission and first instance
Authors, readers and reviewers may complain about editorial procedures or integrity and appeal editorial decisions. The journal editor, currently Sergio Salles, is the first instance, contacted at sergio.salles@ucp.br; submission-related messages may also be recorded in OJS. Requests must identify the journal, submission or article, state the facts, grounds and available evidence and specify the requested outcome. Sufficiently specific anonymous allegations may also be examined. Academic disagreement alone does not establish misconduct.
7. Second instance and conflicts
After the editor’s decision, the person concerned may request referral to the Editorial Board through the same channel, specifying disputed points or new evidence. Complaints involving the editor or a conflict of interest may be referred directly, without the editor deciding their own case. Conflict-free Board members assess the case and communicate a reasoned decision. There is no editorial appeal against the Board’s decision. Clerical errors may be corrected and relevant new evidence may justify reopening by the Board itself; this is neither a third instance nor a guarantee of a favourable outcome.
8. Acknowledgement, timeframes and communication
The editor acknowledges receipt in writing and identifies the responsible instance. Each instance has 30 calendar days from the editor’s acknowledgement in the first instance, or from acknowledgement of receipt of the referral to the Board, communicated by the editor or a conflict-free substitute, in the second instance. Within that period, it communicates a reasoned decision or, where documents, responses or an external investigation remain pending, an interim decision on progress and appropriate measures, explaining the outstanding issue and when the next update is expected. This timeframe does not guarantee completion of an external institutional investigation. Silence is not presumed rejection and a case is not closed solely because time has elapsed.
9. Examination of allegations
The responsible person checks the allegation’s specificity and relevance, preserves records and assesses conflicts. Explanations and evidence are requested from authors and, where relevant, complainants, reviewers or independent experts, giving those concerned an opportunity to respond before conclusions are reached. Disclosure is limited to what is necessary; absolute anonymity cannot be promised where due process or applicable duties require identification. Assessment or publication may be suspended while integrity risks are examined. Matters requiring institutional investigation are referred to the competent institution and followed up editorially. The journal decides how to protect its scholarly record; it does not replace institutional disciplinary investigation.
10. Outcomes and records
Outcomes may include reasoned dismissal of an allegation, maintaining or revising an editorial decision, requesting explanations or changes, rejecting a manuscript, correction, expression of concern or retraction, according to the evidence. Author disagreement does not prevent a necessary, reasoned integrity measure. Acknowledgements, documents, conflict declarations, responses, referrals, decisions and communications are retained in a restricted-access editorial case file. Relevant parties receive the outcome and reasons, with personal data and confidential information protected. Public notices contain only what is necessary to explain the measure.
11. Corrections, retractions and expressions of concern
Localised errors that do not invalidate the work’s core are addressed by correction. Retraction is appropriate when central conclusions or arguments are unreliable because of serious error or misconduct, or in cases of plagiarism, improper redundant publication, unauthorised use of material or unethical research, as applicable. Relevant but inconclusive evidence, or a pending investigation requiring readers to be alerted, may warrant an expression of concern, subsequently updated or resolved. These measures correct the record rather than punish authors.
12. Preservation and transparency of changes
Notices identify the article, grounds, issuer and date and are linked to the work in OJS. Substantive corrections are not made silently: changes and their relationship to the previous version are documented. Retracted articles remain accessible and clearly marked with the notice, except where exceptional removal is necessary because of a legal obligation or serious privacy risk, with an explanation. Expressions of concern are updated when the case is clarified.
13. Post-publication discussion
Critical comments, requests for clarification and responses may be sent to the editor through the stated channel. The journal assesses relevance, substantiation, respectful language and conflicts, may request revision and invites authors to respond. Where scholarly interest warrants, it may publish comments and responses linked to the article, subject to editorial and, if necessary, peer review. Absence of an author response does not prevent substantiated discussion. Integrity allegations follow the investigation procedure; personal attacks and confidential information are not published.
14. References and related policies
This policy draws on the Principles of Transparency and Best Practice (COPE, DOAJ, OASPA and WAME, 2022), the COPE Retraction Guidelines, revised August 2025, and current COPE guidance and flowcharts, applied to the circumstances of each case. Citation does not imply COPE membership. See the journal’s copyright and licensing, plagiarism, LLM policies and author guidelines.
Authorship, contributions and submission (CRediT)
Authorship and contributions must be recorded according to the journal’s CRediT policy. Only an author/coauthor may submit, using their own account and with everyone’s agreement; third parties who are not authors may not submit. Authorship changes and disputes follow the procedures in this ethics policy.
See the authorship, contributions and submission policy (CRediT).
Author guidelines · Authorship and contributions (CRediT) · Peer review · Plagiarism · AI use
Revised: 13 October 2026.