Editorial policies

Preprints

‘Saúde em Debate’ accepts preprint articles as long as they have not been submitted to another journal and are deposited on recognized servers, such as SciELO Preprints, bioRxiv, medRxiv, OSF Preprints (SocArXiv, PsyArXiv), Research Square. A preprint is defined as a manuscript ready for submission, deposited on trusted servers before or in parallel with submission to a journal. This practice aligns with continuous publication as a mechanism to accelerate the dissemination of research results. Preprint articles receive the same treatment as articles deposited directly in the journal, except for the impossibility of maintaining the anonymity of the authors in the peer review process.

Manuscript evaluation process

The online submission platform of ‘Saúde em Debate’ is OJS. It is a complete scientific journal workflow management system that includes: submission, peer review, production, and publication. The review process depends on the availability of associate editors and reviewers, so that the final decision can take up to 120 days.

Initial assessment

All submitted manuscripts undergo an initial evaluation, carried out by an editor-in-chief, in which language, originality, relevance, timeliness, scope, and adherence to the editorial policy are considered. Manuscripts that do not meet these requirements will be rejected.

Technical review

Manuscripts not rejected in the initial evaluation undergo technical review, in which documentation and compliance with the journal’s standards are analyzed. The technical opinion is attached to the OJS system and sent to the authors, along with the evaluators’ opinions.

Peer review

Manuscripts that are still in the evaluation process are sent to an associate editor, who analyzes them and can suggest their rejection or appoint reviewers according to the theme and expertise, who must issue their opinion based on the script available in the system, and may suggest approval, rejection, or recommend changes to the text. If there is a divergence between the reviews, the manuscript is forwarded to a third reviewer.

Based on the opinions received, the associate editor recommends acceptance, rejection, or reformulation of the manuscript. In the case of a request for reformulation, the authors must return the revised manuscript within 15 days, which can be extended at their request. If there is no manifestation of the authors within the established period, the manuscript is excluded from the system.

The version corrected by the authors is analyzed by the associate editor, who may decide to accept the manuscript (if they consider that all the reviewers’ recommendations have been met) or create a second round of evaluation to issue new reviews, which may indicate acceptance, rejection, or request for new corrections, and so on until the final decision. The associate editor is also responsible for reading and approving the final version of the diagrammed manuscript.

In line with the principles of Open Science, ‘Saúde em Debate’ publishes, at the end of the approved manuscript, the name, institutional affiliation, and the ORCID of the associate editor responsible for evaluating the article.

‘Saúde em Debate’ adopts three types of peer review:

  1. Double-blind evaluation: authors and reviewers do not know each other’s identity.
  2. Single-blind evaluation: the authors reveal their identity, but the reviewers remain anonymous.
  3. Open evaluation: authors and reviewers know each other’s identities.

The most common evaluation modality adopted by the journal is double-blind. However, in preprints, the anonymity of the authors is not ensured.

Editorial decision

The editors-in-chief have full authority to decide on the final acceptance of the work and the changes made. Additions or modifications after the final approval of the work are not allowed. After the manuscript is accepted, the technical team will provide guidelines and make referrals for editorial production, which includes: standardization, spelling and grammar review, translation, layout (PDF and XML), and submission to the databases. This process can take up to 60 days.

Internal submissions

Editorials published in regular issues and presentations published in special thematic issues are not submitted to peer review; however, they are reviewed and approved by the journal’s Editorial Committee.

Open data

‘Saúde em Debate’ encourages authors to make all research data (database, methods, codes, and other materials used and resulting from the research) available in reliable Open Access repositories. It has a SciELO Data page for authors to deposit their research data, accessible at: https://data.scielo.org/dataverse/brsdeb. If authors decide to deposit the data in another repository, there are options available at: https://www.scielo.org/pt-br/sobre-o-scielo/metodologias-e-tecnologias/lista-de-repositorios-para-deposito-de-dados-de-pesquisa/.

To assist with data entry, we recommend consulting the ‘Research Data Preparation Guide’ and the ‘Data Entry Guide’.

Fee collection

Submission fee

‘Saúde em Debate’ does not charge submission fees.

Publication fee

A publication fee of R$ 1,000 (updated in February 2026) is charged. The value of manuscripts approved for the interview and review sections is R$ 800. The Editorial Committee will evaluate requests for a discount or exemption from the publication fee.

Other costs

Additional costs refer to: 1) spelling and grammar review (mandatory), carried out by a specialized professional, with the authors being allowed to choose a reviewer from the list provided by the journal; 2) translation into English, Spanish, and/or Portuguese (optional), based on a list of translators indicated by the journal. In both cases, the negotiation must take place between the authors and the reviewers/translators.

Ethics in publication

The journal follows the Recommendations for the preparation, writing, editing, and publication of academic papers in medical journals, of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE). It adopts the international guidelines of scientific integrity, such as the recommendations of the codes of ethical conduct in publication and good editing practices of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). In addition, it follows the guidelines of the ‘SciELO Guide of Good Practices for Strengthening Ethics in Scientific Publishing’ and the ‘Principles of Transparency and Good Practices in Academic Publications’ recommended by the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ).

‘Saúde em Debate’ does not admit plagiarism (presenting phrases, ideas, concepts or theories as if they were one’s own, that is, without citing the original author), self-plagiarism (using, in whole or in part, one’s own texts already published as if they were unpublished) and duplicate publication (presenting a manuscript that substantially overlaps with one already published). It points out that plagiarism is a crime under the Brazilian Penal Code. Manuscripts that adopt such practices are rejected.

Articles derived from academic works (dissertations and theses) deposited in institutional repositories do not constitute self-plagiarism. The deposit of theses and dissertations in institutional repositories does not compromise originality and should be recognized as a legitimate part of scientific communication. The journal reaffirms its commitment to Open Science, advocating editorial policies that ensure transparency, value the disclosure of manuscript origins, and strengthen public dissemination of scientific knowledge.

The publication of articles reporting the results of research involving human beings is subject to compliance with the ethical principles contained in the Declaration of Helsinki and with the specific legislation of the country where the research was carried out. Research carried out in Brazil must follow the ethical principles established in Resolutions No. 466/2012 and No. 510/2016 of the National Health Council (CNS) and be accompanied by a copy of the Research Ethics Committee (CEP) approval opinion. Research involving animals must follow international ethical principles and Resolution No. 30/2016 of the National Council for the Control of Animal Experimentation (CONCEA). It must present a document of approval from the CEP Animal. In any case, all information must be recorded in the ‘Material and methods’ section, including the number of the approval opinion of the respective Committee.

‘Saúde em Debate’ supports the clinical trial policies of the World Health Organization (WHO) and the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE). Therefore, clinical research must report this information in the ‘Material and methods’ section.

Responsibility of the site

The ‘Saúde em Debate’ website guarantees the integrity, credibility, and ethics of the information and publication processes, keeping editorial policies up to date. It adheres to COPE’s ethical guidelines, ensuring the validity and scientific relevance of published texts, and follows the General Data Protection Law in Brazil, ensuring the protection of the personal data of its users (authors, reviewers, and readers). ‘Saúde em Debate’ reserves the right to make normative, spelling, and grammatical changes to the originals, to maintain the cultured standard of the language, respecting the style of the authors.

Responsibility of the author

Authors of articles published by ‘Saúde em Debate’ maintain the copyright of their works, granting the journal the right of first publication, licensing them under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which allows articles to be reused and distributed without restriction as long as there is recognition of authorship and initial publication in this journal. The opinions expressed by the authors of the articles are their sole responsibility.

‘Saúde em Debate’ encourages authors to self-archive their accepted manuscripts by publishing them on personal blogs, institutional repositories, and academic social media, as well as posting them on their personal social media, as long as the full citation of the version available on the journal’s website is included.

Authors are responsible for ensuring the originality, accuracy, and integrity of manuscripts submitted to ‘Saúde em Debate’, ensuring that the research has been conducted and reported ethically and transparently. Submissions must follow the journal’s editorial guidelines and observe international standards of good scientific practices, such as those established by ICMJE and COPE. Compliance with these principles is fundamental for the credibility of the publication and for the reliability of the knowledge produced in the field of health.

They must also promptly respond to requests from the Editorial Committee or evaluators, clearly and within the established deadlines, and provide clarifications or complementary materials when requested. Immediately communicate to the editorial board any relevant error identified in the article, before or after publication, collaborating with the issuance of errata, retraction, or other measures necessary to preserve scientific integrity.

Responsibilities of the editors

Ensure that the peer review process guidelines remain up to date and transparently available, so that authors and reviewers are clearly informed about the procedures, criteria, and responsibilities involved in the editorial process.

Ensure compliance with evaluation and publication deadlines to promote agility and efficiency throughout the editorial process. Ensure that the decision on the acceptance or rejection of an article is based exclusively on academic criteria, methodological rigor, and scientific relevance.

Establish and maintain effective mechanisms to identify, prevent, and manage conflicts of interest involving authors, reviewers, and editorial members. Treat all submissions with equity, free from discrimination by gender, nationality, institutional affiliation, academic position, or any other factor unrelated to scientific merit. Act diligently and promptly when faced with suspicions of academic misconduct, plagiarism, data manipulation, or other irregularities, and follow the appropriate ethical procedures.

Ensure editorial independence, ensuring that personal, institutional, economic, or political interests do not influence decisions on evaluation and publication.

Confirm that all approved texts are in accordance with internationally accepted ethical principles for research, authorship, data integrity, and scholarly communication.

Maintain accessible channels for receiving and forwarding complaints, queries, or disputes from authors, evaluators, and readers, promoting transparency and editorial responsibility.

Continuously seek improvements in the journal’s management process and editorial policy, incorporating tools, practices, and updated recommendations from recognized bodies in the area of scientific publishing.

Develop scientific dissemination strategies to expand the journal’s visibility and social reach, promote its content across platforms, and strengthen public access to the knowledge it produces.

Responsibilities of the evaluators

Check if the manuscript is aligned with your area of expertise and, if not, inform the editorial board so that another reviewer can be appointed.

Immediately declare any conflicts of interest (financial, professional, academic, or personal) and, when relevant, refuse the evaluation.

Maintain openness to new approaches, methods, and perspectives, evaluating them with equity and respect for the epistemological diversity of public health, recognizing the dynamic character of science and the value of innovative contributions.

Comply with the agreed deadlines and promptly communicate to the Editorial Committee any impediment, contributing to the fluidity and predictability of the editorial process.

Inform the Editorial Committee about possible ethical issues identified during the reading (e.g., plagiarism, redundant publication, manipulation/fabrication of data, inappropriate treatment of human beings or animals, relevant similarities with already published works).

‘Saúde em Debate’ reinforces the importance of evaluators maintaining the highest ethical standard in their evaluations, avoiding prejudice and respecting intellectual property rights, based exclusively on scientific merit and adherence to the scope of the journal. It recommends that reviews be respectful, objective, critical, impartial, and constructive, ensuring they are helpful to authors in improving the methodological quality, argumentative coherence, and transparency of the research. Reviewers are recommended to read COPE’s Peer Review Guidelines.

Errata and retraction

‘Saúde em Debate’ is committed to ethical principles and transparency in research and scientific communications. It follows the ICMJE guidelines and recommendations for the preparation, writing, editing, and publication of academic papers. It adopts, in its editorial processes, the principles of transparency and good practices in academic publications of COPE, including procedures for addressing errors or misconduct in research and scholarly communication, as well as the ‘Guide of good practices for strengthening ethics in scientific publishing’ of the SciELO Network.

Errata

‘Saúde em Debate’ adopts the policy of post-publication corrections in accordance with SciELO’s ‘Guide for Registration and Publication of Errata’, ensuring the accuracy and transparency of the scientific record. Corrections, through errata, can occur when scientific, factual, or editorial errors are identified that do not invalidate the central content of the article, but that require updating or adjustment to ensure the accuracy of the information. The authors, editors, or readers may make the request and must send it to the journal’s official e-mail address (revista@saudeemdebate.org.br), including a detailed description of the error and the proposed correction. The evaluation will be conducted by two members of the editorial board, and if the request is approved, the correction will be published as an erratum; the original manuscript will be retained, and the change will be recorded at the end of the text, linked via Digital Object Identifier (DOI).

Retractions

‘Saúde em Debate’ adopts strict guidelines to prevent and identify possible misconduct in research. The retraction will be made when there is proof of a serious error that compromises the results or conclusions of the study, as well as in cases of fraud, fabrication, or manipulation of data, plagiarism, redundant publication, or ethical violations related to research with human beings or animals. The investigation is conducted by the Editorial Board in accordance with ICMJE recommendations, codes of conduct, and COPE flowcharts. Authors are always given the opportunity to respond, and the journal may request original data and consult experts. Once the irregularities are confirmed, the final decision for retraction is made by informing the authors. Two types of retraction are possible: 1) total retraction: cancels all content of the published document; 2) partial retraction: cancels part of the content of the published document. Serious cases are reported to the authors’ affiliated institution, and the authors may face sanctions from the journal, such as a temporary suspension. The journal publicly states the reason for the retraction, including a full citation of the retracted document in the bibliographic format adopted by the journal.

The journal clearly explains the reason for the retraction in a text that includes the full citation of the document as specified in the journal’s bibliographic standard.

Appeals and complaints

Authors may request reconsideration of editorial decisions by submitting a reasoned justification to the journal’s executive editor or editor-in-chief. They, together with the associate editor responsible for the manuscript, will review the request and provide a response to the authors, which may result in acceptance of the manuscript, a new round of peer review, or the upholding of the rejection decision. No appeals are permitted for manuscripts rejected during the preliminary evaluation process.

Conflict of interest policy

Conflicts of interest can occur when authors, reviewers, or editors have interests that may have influenced the preparation of the manuscript and/or influenced the evaluation process.

By submitting the manuscript, authors are responsible for acknowledging and declaring financial or other conflicts that may have influenced the work. Examples of conflicts of interest include employment relationships, consulting, financing received, equity participation in companies, honoraria, testimony by paid specialists, and patents, among others. If there is, even potentially, a conflict of interest, the author(s) must disclose it on the cover page attached to the system at the time of submission.

Likewise, reviewers must inform the editor in charge of any conflict of interest that may influence the analysis of the manuscript, declaring themselves unable to decide on it.

When an editor has a conflict of interest, they should delegate the decision to other editors.

For more information, go to: Disclosure of Financial and Non-Financial Relationships and Activities, and Conflicts of Interest.

Adoption of similarity checking software

The manuscripts received undergo plagiarism detection software during the technical evaluation, and a report is issued. ‘Saúde em Debate’ uses the Crossref Similarity Check software integrated with iThenticate. Authors can be asked about the information identified by the tool to ensure the originality of the manuscripts and to reference all the sources used. If plagiarism is proven, the manuscript is rejected.

Articles derived from academic works (dissertations and theses) deposited in institutional repositories do not constitute self-plagiarism. The deposit of theses and dissertations in institutional repositories does not compromise originality and should be recognized as a legitimate part of scientific communication. ‘Saúde em Debate’ reaffirms its commitment to Open Science, advocating editorial policies that ensure transparency, value the declaration of the origin of manuscripts, and strengthen the public dissemination of scientific knowledge.

Sex and gender issues

The editorial team of ‘Saúde em Debate’, as well as the authors who publish in it, must follow the Sex and Gender Equity in Research (SAGER) guidelines. The SAGER guidelines provide guidance on the reporting of sex and gender information in study design, analysis, and the interpretation of results. In addition, the journal adheres to the gender equity policy in the composition of its editorial board. It ensures that the evaluation and decision-making processes are conducted with impartiality, transparency, and respect for the plurality of knowledge, identities, and experiences. No manuscript is rejected outright based on the authors’ characteristics, such as skin color, ethnicity, nationality, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, disability, socioeconomic status, age, political position, or any other discriminatory factor. The journal encourages the publication of articles that address social inequalities in health. It reaffirms its commitment to expanding access to content, in line with the principles of Open Science and good editorial practices.

Adoption of software and use of Artificial Intelligence resources

The editorial team informs that it does not use generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools in the editorial process. However, ‘Saúde em Debate’ recognizes that AI can be used as an auxiliary tool in research activities. The journal allows authors to use AI (LLMs, chatbots, or image generators) for the following purposes: linguistic revision, grammar correction, and textual organization. The use of AI must be recorded in the ‘Material and methods’ section, stating the name of the tool and the reason for use. The use of these technologies should be carried out under the supervision of researchers, with authorship remaining exclusively human, in accordance with the ICMJE criteria and the recommendations of the World Association of Medical Editors (Wame). If the use of an AI application is found during the similarity analysis and this was not adequately informed, the manuscript will be automatically disregarded for publication.

Research Ethics Committee

Authors must attach, at the time of submission, proof of approval of the CEP of the institution responsible for approving the research.

All research conducted with human beings must obtain the consent of its participants or their legal guardians, who must know the objectives of the research and the potential risks and benefits. They must be provided with the researchers’ contact details and guaranteed the option to withdraw from the study at any time. The way to obtain the Informed Consent Form and its content must be analyzed and approved by the CEP.

In case of publication of the manuscript in ‘Saúde em Debate’, the authors maintain the copyright over it, allowing, through the Creative Commons Attribution BY 4.0 License, that it be used and distributed without restriction as long as the original work is correctly cited. The authors, under this license, authorize the first publication in ‘Saúde em Debate’.