About the Journal

Focus and Scope

Journal Health NPEPS is a scientific publication conceived in 2016 by the NPEPS Research Group of the State University of Mato Grosso (UNEMAT) and linked to the UNEMAT Publishing House and hosted on the UNEMAT Periodicals Portal, to foster the discussion of health-related topics with originality, focusing on academic training and the constant improvement of health professionals, researchers, managers and the community. It is available free of charge, in electronic form and with open access. The Journal Health NPEPS has the mission of promoting the dissemination of scientific studies in the health field with excellence and global reach.

 

Open Access Policy

This journal fully adheres to the philosophy and principles of Open Access. All published articles are made available under an open access model immediately after publication, under the Creative Commons Attribution CC BY 4.0 License. We also declare that our Open Access policy is in full compliance with the DOAJ Open Access Definition.

 

Copyright Statement

By submitting a manuscript to the Journal Health NPEPS, authors agree to the transfer of rights to publish and disseminate the work in its print and digital formats.

Ownership and First Publication Rights: Intellectual property copyright remains with the respective authors. The Journal Health NPEPS is granted the right of first publication, accompanied by a license that allows the sharing and dissemination of the article.

Republishing and Citation of Source: Authors are permitted to republish or use the data and conclusions in future academic works or books, provided that the Journal Health NPEPS is duly acknowledged and cited as the primary source of publication.

Open Access and Reuse: As a journal based on a commitment to Open Access, the Journal Health NPEPS authorizes the free consultation, copying, distribution, and citation of content for educational, scientific, and research purposes, provided that attribution to the authors and the journal is maintained.

 

Archiving Policy

The Journal Health NPEPS is managed through the Open Journal Systems (OJS) and the Public Knowledge Project (PKP). It utilizes the archiving system developed by PKP itself, the PKP Preservation Network. In this way, the journal ensures the secure preservation of its content, following best practice standards in archiving. Further information is available at: https://pkp.sfu.ca/pkp-pn/.

 

Peer Review Process

Upon submission, the author will receive a submission confirmation email containing a link to track the evaluation process. Prior to manuscript evaluation, a full desk review will be conducted to verify its suitability to the journal's scope, adherence to guidelines, and plagiarism (the manuscript will be submitted to the iThenticate software, and the author will be notified of any inconsistencies).

Subsequently, the manuscript will be sent for evaluation by external reviewers. If any inadequacies are identified, the author will be notified to make the necessary corrections within a maximum of seven days. Failure to comply within this timeframe will result in the manuscript being archived, and the author may choose to resubmit it, initiating a new review process.

The Journal Health NPEPS adopts a double-blind peer review policy, with each article evaluated by two external ad hoc reviewers. The editor-in-chief will electronically forward the manuscript to the reviewer according to their research area and field of expertise. The peer review system uses reviewers external to the publishing institution (UNEMAT).

The reviewer will have a maximum of seven days to decide whether or not to accept the manuscript for evaluation after receiving the invitation from the editor-in-chief. Each reviewer will receive a maximum of two manuscripts per month for evaluation, and may accept or reject the evaluation in the journal's electronic system, without any prejudice to the reviewer. If the evaluation is rejected, the manuscript will be forwarded to another reviewer respecting their area of ​​study.

Each reviewer will follow the basic guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). After accepting to evaluate the manuscript forwarded by the journal's editor-in-chief, they will have a maximum of 20 days to issue their opinion electronically. An electronic checklist containing all the items to be evaluated in the manuscript will be provided to each reviewer, which must be attached to the system upon completion. The author will have a maximum of 10 days to return the manuscript with the reviewers' corrections and comments and continue the evaluation process. If the reviews indicate two rejections for the article, the author will be notified and the case will be archived. The reviews will be evaluated by the editorial board, which will issue the final decision, or, in case of disagreement between reviews, request a third review.

If the manuscript is accepted after all editorial stages, it will be included in the publication order of the next available issue, according to the journal's publication schedule. The average time between submission and final decision is 120 days.

The Author Guidelines, detailing the guidelines on publishable manuscript categories, organization, and submission of proposals, can be found in the Main Menu under "About" and the "Submission" tab.

 

Frequency

Semiannual - June and December

 

Article Processing Fee (APC)

This journal does not charge submission or publication fees. After manuscript acceptance, authors are responsible for translation and grammar revision by accredited professionals/companies.

 

Policy on the Use of Artificial Intelligence

The Journal Health NPEPS monitors technological innovations that impact scientific communication in health and values ​​the responsible use of new tools in the research workflow. To ensure ethics, transparency, and alignment with the principles of Open Science and academic integrity, we have defined below the criteria governing the use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in manuscripts submitted to the journal.

A. General Principles and Limitations of Authorship

Exclusively Human Authorship: AI tools, language models (LLMs), or software do not meet the criteria for scientific authorship. Under no circumstances may they be listed as authors or co-authors of articles published in the Journal Health NPEPS.

Author Responsibility: All intellectual validation, interpretation of findings, and data verification are the full and irrevocable responsibility of the researchers. Content generated by AI may contain bias, misinformation, or non-existent citations; authors are responsible for meticulous review of the entire text.

Scope of Application: The use of AI solutions should focus on improving writing, textual fluency, structural organization, and translation, and should not replace human critical judgment and analytical capacity in conducting and reporting research.

B. Transparency and Accountability Standards

Whenever generative AI is used in the writing or structuring phase of the manuscript, authors must explicitly record this conduct.

Location in the Manuscript: Insert the communication in the "Use of Artificial Intelligence Tools" section, located at the end of the article body (after the final considerations/conclusion and preceding the list of References).

Notification Exception: Routine resources such as native spell checkers in word processors, syntax readers, and citation managers (e.g., Mendeley, Zotero) do not require formal notification.

C. Standard Declaration Form

Declaration if generative AI was used, use the following standard:

Use of Artificial Intelligence Tools: I/We declare that the technology(ies) [insert tool name and version] was/were used to [describe the purpose in detail, e.g., support in improving the syntactic/stylistic quality of the text]. We inform that the resulting content has undergone rigorous human verification and editing, and the authors are fully responsible for the academic and ethical content of the manuscript submitted to the Journal Health NPEPS.

Furthermore, the use of AI must be explicitly stated in the Methods section of the manuscript, indicating the name of the tool used and the purpose of its use.

 

Statement on Ethics and Misconduct

The Journal Health NPEPS follows the best practice guidelines on ethics and misconduct from COPE and the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ), as stated on the DOAJ Transparency and Best Practices pages. Publication ethics and the misconduct statement are primarily based on the COPE Code of Conduct and Guidelines for Good Practices for Journal Editors.

Editors are responsible for:

1) Publication Decisions
The editor is responsible for deciding which articles submitted to the journal will be published. The editor will evaluate manuscripts without regard to the authors' race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy. The decision will be based on the importance, originality, and clarity of the article, as well as the validity of the study and its relevance to the scope of the journal. Current legal requirements regarding defamation, copyright infringement, and plagiarism are also considered.

2) Confidentiality
The editor and any member of the editorial staff must not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, or as appropriate, to reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial consultants, and the editor.

3) Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest
Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted article will not be used by the editor or members of the editorial board for their own research purposes without the explicit written consent of the author.

4) Source Acknowledgment
Editors should use appropriate software to identify instances where relevant published work referenced in the article has not been cited in the reference section. The results of the software analysis should indicate whether observations or arguments derived from other publications are accompanied by the respective source. Editors will notify the author of any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published article of which they are aware.

Reviewers' Responsibilities:

1) Contribution to Editorial Decisions
The peer review process assists the editor and editorial board in making editorial decisions and also serves the author in improving the manuscript.

2) Readiness
Any selected reviewer who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or who knows that their immediate review will be impossible should notify the editor and withdraw from the review process.

3) Confidentiality
All manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They should not be disclosed or discussed with others, except as authorized by the editor.

4) Standards of Objectivity
Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Reviewers should express their opinions clearly with supporting arguments.

5) Acknowledgment of Sources
Reviewers should identify instances where a relevant published work referenced in the article has not been cited in the references section. They should indicate whether observations or arguments derived from other publications are accompanied by the respective source. Reviewers will notify the editor of any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published article about which they have personal knowledge.
6) Disclosure and Conflict of Interest
Intelligent information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and should not be used for personal gain. Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with other authors, companies, or institutions associated with the work.

Authors' Responsibilities:

1) Manuscript Standards
Authors of original research manuscripts must present an accurate account of the work performed, as well as an objective discussion of its significance. Underlying data must be accurately represented in the article. An article must contain sufficient detail and references to allow others to replicate the work. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable.

2) Data Access and Retention
Authors may be asked to provide the raw data from their studies along with the article for editorial review and should be prepared to make the data publicly available, if possible. In any case, authors must ensure the accessibility of this data to other competent professionals for at least ten years after publication (preferably through an institutional data repository or other data center), provided that the confidentiality of participants can be protected and legal rights relating to the ownership of the information do not prevent its disclosure.

3) Originality, Plagiarism, and Source Acknowledgment
Authors should submit only entirely original work and properly cite the work and/or words of others. Publications that were influential in determining the nature of the reported work should also be cited.

4) Multiple, Redundant, or Simultaneous Publication
In general, articles that describe essentially the same research should not be published in more than one journal. Submitting the same work to more than one journal constitutes unethical publication behavior and is unacceptable. The Journal Health NPEPS allows a maximum of two manuscript submissions per author per publication year. Authors may only use the same results in other publications by clearly indicating this journal as the original publication source.

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

The corresponding author ensures that all contributing co-authors and no uninvolved persons are included in the author list. The corresponding author will also verify that all co-authors have approved the final version of the article and agreed to its submission for publication.

The Journal Health NPEPS requests that the individual contributions of each author be indicated on the last page of each manuscript.

6) Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest
All authors must include a statement disclosing any financial or other conflict of interest that could be interpreted as influencing the results or interpretation of their manuscript. All sources of financial support for the project must be disclosed.

7) Fundamental Errors in Published Works
When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in their own published work, it is the author's obligation to immediately notify the journal editor and cooperate with the editor to retract or correct the article in the form of an erratum.

The author(s), identifying the need to request an erratum, must send it to the Journal within a maximum of 15 days after the publication of the article, and the decision regarding its relevance (sufficiently serious errors) and possible disclosure will be at the discretion of the Journal.

Errata can also be published at the end of articles, as recommended by international databases, preserving the original manuscript record and informing about any necessary corrections.

 

Scientific Misconduct and Editorial Ethics

The Journal Health NPEPS bases its publications on scientific rigor, categorically repudiating the fabrication, adulteration of data, or any form of academic fraud. Authors, editors, and reviewers are expected to act under the highest standards of responsibility and intellectual honesty.

Violations of the principles of editorial integrity include:

Irregularities in Authorship Attribution: Practices of improper attribution, whether by excluding researchers with an active role in the study or by granting authorship to someone who did not intellectually participate in the research.

Concealment of Connections and Interests: Lack of transparency regarding funding, sponsorships, or institutional alliances that may bias the interpretation of results.

Distortion of Editorial Citation Status: Misleading classification of unpublished manuscripts or manuscripts under review as if they were already accepted for publication.

Textual Reuse Without Traceability: Transcription or reuse of substantial excerpts from previous productions of the research group itself without proper contextualization or citation.

Research Fragmentation or Duplication: Artificial fragmentation of a single study to generate multiple articles (salami slicing) or simultaneous submission of the same data body to different journals.

In investigating and forwarding complaints or suspicions of ethical violations, the Journal Health NPEPS fully adopts the recommendations and operational guidelines of COPE.

Originality and Data Reuse

Acceptance of papers in the Journal Health NPEPS is conditional upon their originality. Authors must formally inform the editorial board of any prior disclosure of parts of the research in repositories, technical reports, or postgraduate academic works. The presentation of papers in conference proceedings in summary format does not negate originality, provided that this condition is declared at the time of submission.

Verification of Originality and Intellectual Property

The incorporation of data, text excerpts, visual diagrams, or methodologies developed by other researchers requires rigorous source identification and, when applicable, obtaining the necessary copyright permissions.

The journal screens all manuscripts using specialized software for identifying textual similarities (iThenticate). The discovery of overlaps without proper attribution or unauthorized verbatim reproductions will result in the immediate rejection of the manuscript.

 

Anti-plagiarism Policy

The Journal Health NPEPS values ​​the integrity of the content it publishes, detecting and combating plagiarism in accordance with COPE guidelines, Law No. 9.610/98 – Copyright Law, and Article 184 of the Penal Code (Crime of Violation of Copyright).

 

CONDUCTS IN FRONT OF IDENTIFICATIONS
Identifying similarities in the Desk Review process.	Notification to the lead author regarding the submission.
Identifying a previously published work in the Desk Review process.	Notification to the lead author regarding the submission and immediate rejection of the manuscript.
Identifying plagiarism in the reviewer evaluation process.	Notification to the lead author regarding the submission and immediate rejection of the manuscript.
Identifying plagiarism after final review (proofreading)	Notification to the authors and immediate rejection of the manuscript. Suspension of the possibility of publishing in the Journal Health NPEPS for 12 months.
Identification of plagiarism after publication.	Notification of the authors and immediate withdrawal of the article. Replacement of the article with a document stating the reason for the withdrawal. Communication to the databases for deletion. Communication to the authors' institutions. Communication to the Brazilian Association of Scientific Publishers (ABEC).

 

Complaints and Editorial Ombudsman Channel

Journal Health NPEPS values ​​transparency, fairness, and excellence in editorial management. If authors identify nonconformities, ethical inconsistencies, or dissatisfaction during the journal's workflow, the complaint should be submitted according to the steps described below:

The complaint should be addressed to the Editor-in-Chief, with a substantiated justification sent to the journal's institutional email (npeps@unemat.br).

Deadlines and Resolution: The editorial team will send a confirmation of receipt of the appeal within 10 business days, informing the investigative steps that will be applied to investigate the issue and present a final position.