Laboreal follows the highest ethical publishing practices with regard to authorship, originality, data integrity, ethical conduct of research, and disclosure of conflicts of interest. All submitting authors must uphold the high standards of publication in accordance with the guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), of which Laboreal is a member. Authors must acknowledge compliance with these ethical requirements when submitting manuscripts (see Submitting a manuscript).

All publishing decisions made are Laboreal's Editorial Committee responsibility. Any case of ethical misconduct will be handled in accordance with the principles of the COPE Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors.

1. Authors’ Duties

1.1. Reporting standards

Authors of original research papers should provide an accurate account of their work and an objective discussion of its significance. Data supporting the reported work must be presented precisely. Fraudulent or intentionally inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior.

1.2. Originality, plagiarism and acknowledgement of sources

It is the responsibility of the authors to ensure that the submitted article is the work of the submitting authors and not plagiarized in whole or in part. Plagiarism takes many forms, from “transcribing” another person’s work as one’s own, to copying or paraphrasing substantial portions of another’s work (without attribution, accreditation, and citation), to claiming results from research conducted by others. Plagiarism, in all its forms, constitutes unethical behavior and, as such, is unacceptable.

Authors must ensure that the submitted article is original, that it is not a republication of a previous work by the authors, and that it does not contain fraudulent data. It is also the responsibility of the authors to verify that all copyrighted material reproduced in their manuscripts (e.g., images) has permission for publication and that material the author does not personally hold copyright in is not reproduced without permission.

Authors must ensure that they properly cite the authorship of the works referenced in their manuscript. Authors must cite all publications that were instrumental to the reported work.

1.3. Authorship of the paper and authors’ contributions

Authorship of manuscripts should be limited to those who have contributed significantly to the conception, design, execution or interpretation of the reported research. Therefore, all persons who have contributed substantially should be listed as co-authors. At the time of submission of the article, authors must complete the “Authors’ Contribution Statement”, which is available in the respective submission template (see Instructions for submitting papers).

The corresponding author should ensure that all identified authors contributed to the research reported in the submitted manuscript, and that all co-authors approved the final version of the paper and agreed to its submission for publication.

If there are other individuals who have contributed to substantive aspects of the article (e.g., language editing, proofreading), these may be acknowledged in an acknowledgements section.

1.4. Data protection and privacy

Authors must ensure that no information that could identify participants in their research is revealed without their consent. It is strongly recommended that all data be anonymized, whether in verbatim excerpts, images/photos, or any other supplementary material (e.g., charts).

1.5. Acknowledgement of funding sources

The sources of funding for the research and/or preparation of the article must be disclosed, whenever applicable. Detailed information about the source(s) of financial support must be declared, such as the funding agency/institution, research grant code/identifier (if applicable), or funding line.

1.6. Declaration of generative AI in scientific writing

• The use of generative AI and AI-assisted technologies in the writing of articles may be done with the aim of improving the readability of the manuscript or for the development of analysis models. The use of AI technologies and the results generated by them do not, at any time, dispense with careful supervision and review by the authors. In all circumstances, the authors are responsible for the entire content of the manuscripts submitted to Laboreal.

• The use of AI tools to create, even partially, images in submitted manuscripts is not permitted.

• It is the authors' responsibility to disclose the use of AI and AI-assisted technologies during the writing process. To this end, authors should add the following “Statement of use of artificial intelligence” at the end of their manuscript, and before the References section:

Statement: In the preparation of this work, the author(s) used [Name of AI tool] for the purpose of [Motive]. After using this tool/service, the author(s) reviewed and edited the content as necessary and assume full responsibility for the content of this article.

If there is nothing to disclose, there is no need to add this statement.

• The use of AI to write the manuscript or a significant part of it is not permitted. Under no circumstances may an AI tool or service be identified as the author of the manuscript. Using passages of text generated by AI and passing them off as one’s own constitutes unethical behavior. Therefore, the Editorial Committee of Laboreal reserves the right to carry out various checks and verifications in case of doubt. Examples of uses of AI permitted by Laboreal are tools for reducing the number of words, spelling, grammar or syntax correction, translation support, or even tools to support the planning of the writing process (e.g., to create plans). In manuscripts that present literature reviews, authors are encouraged to describe, in the Methods section, how they used the AI ​​tool in their research. As described in the previous point, any use of AI in the manuscript submitted to Laboreal must be detailed in the “Statement of use of artificial intelligence”.

• In cases where the AI ​​tool/software is a bibliographic reference, authors should make the appropriate reference in the References section. To this end, authors should adopt the American Psychological Association (APA) guidelines in this area, also available in the APA Publication Manual, 7^th edition (see chapter 10).

• Any use of AI must comply with the highest ethical standards. Authors must ensure that the data used respects the principles of confidentiality and informed consent.

1.7. Use of inclusive language

The use of inclusive and non-discriminatory language conveys respect for all people, promotes equal opportunities, and is sensitive to differences. In this spirit, Laboreal recognizes the importance of inclusive writing and feminization to promote gender equality. Therefore, all forms of inclusive, neutral and/or feminized writing are accepted, as long as the chosen style is consistent and coherent throughout the manuscript – this includes, for example, the use of full stops, dashes, parentheses (with or without plural), or other forms of inclusive writing that respect the principles of gender equality.

The content of manuscripts submitted to Laboreal should not contain anything that could imply that one person is superior to another based on age, gender, ethnicity, culture, disability or health status. Authors should use inclusive language throughout the article.

1.8. Data access and retention

In accordance with Laboreal's Data Sharing Policy, authors are strongly encouraged to make available the data that support the results presented in their submitted articles. To this end, at the time of manuscript submission, authors must identify the link to the respective repository in which their data are deposited, as indicated in the respective submission template (see Instructions for submitting papers).

If authors choose not to share data at the time of article submission, they may be asked to provide their research data together with the article for editorial review. Therefore, authors should be prepared to make such data available, ensuring its accessibility, preferably through a generalist or institutional data repository, guaranteeing the confidentiality and protection of the people who participated in the research and the legal rights relating to data ownership.

1.9. Multiple, redundant and concurrent publication

Articles that describe essentially the same research or reproduce work previously published by the authors in another journal or as a chapter should not be submitted. Furthermore, and because it constitutes unethical behavior, authors should not submit the same article to more than one journal simultaneously. Authors should refrain from “salami publication”, that is, segmenting their research, transforming one article into several different articles.

When submitting an article, authors are asked to complete a “Declaration of Originality”, in which they acknowledge the originality of the submitted manuscript and that its content has not been previously published in any other language, nor is it currently under evaluation for another publication. This declaration is available in the respective submission template (see Instructions for submitting papers).

By submitting a manuscript to Laboreal, authors retain the rights to the material reproduced in the article. If accepted for publication by Laboreal, authors declare that they authorize the use of their work for publication in OpenEdition Journals, a platform that Laboreal is part of.

Authors of manuscripts accepted for publication have the possibility to approve the typographical proofs before final publication, by sending the article after formatting and graphic treatment carried out by the Editorial Committee.

1.10. Conflicts of interest

Authors should not have any financial or other conflicts of interest that could influence the results presented or their interpretation. According to the COPE, conflicts of interest “are situations that have the potential to influence people’s judgments. Such situations may affect, or may be perceived to affect, every stage of research, from planning to applying for or allocating funding, conducting a study, interpreting data, and reporting research” (COPE, 2018).

As described in 1.5, authors must disclose all sources of funding for their research.

1.11. Notification of fundamental errors

If an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in his/her previously published article, it is the author's obligation to promptly notify the Laboreal Editorial Committee and cooperate with it to correct or even retract the manuscript, if such a situation is considered necessary by the Editorial Committee.

2. Peer review and reviewers’ responsibilities

Laboreal uses a double-blind peer-review system for all submitted manuscripts (see The peer review process). Both reviewers and authors remain anonymous throughout the review process.

Reviewers are selected by the Laboreal Editorial Committee according to their expertise. Any selected reviewer who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript should notify the Editorial Committee and decline to participate in the review process.

2.1. Contribution to editorial decisions

Peer review helps the Editorial Committee make editorial decisions and can also help improve the article under consideration.

Reviewers are asked to specifically assess whether the article submitted to Laboreal meets the following criteria:

• The article addresses dimensions of real work (i.e., dimensions related to how work is actually performed) based on contextualization and feasibility criteria and not on criteria related to the universal and the ideal;

• The article contributes, directly or indirectly, to transforming concrete work situations;

• The article addresses innovative themes that help to develop not only scientific knowledge, but also the necessary knowledge regarding intervention in the workplace;

• The article uses language accessible to various disciplines and takes into account the journal's Spanish-Lusophone readership (e.g., acronyms, bibliography).

The reviewers evaluate the article based on the following scale: “Publishable in the original form”; “Publishable with minor changes”; “Publishable with major changes”; or “Not publishable”. After this evaluation, the Editorial Committee sends a decision to the corresponding author, together with the reviewers’ recommendations (the review process, communication to authors and final decision are detailed in The peer review process).

2.2. Standards of objectivity and conflicts of interest

It is the responsibility of reviewers to be objective in their assessments. Personal criticism of authors is neither appropriate nor acceptable. Reviewers should clearly express their views with supporting arguments, with a view to improving the article under review.

Reviewers must not have any conflicts of interest in relation to the research reported in the article under review, in relation to the authors (e.g., professional collaboration) and/or in relation to the research funding institutions.

If any of these conflicts of interest arise, the reviewer must inform the Editorial Committee, which will appoint another reviewer.

2.3. Confidentiality

Manuscripts under review by reviewers must be treated as confidential documents and must not be disclosed or discussed with third parties.

2.4. Use of generative AI and AI-assisted technologies in the journal peer review process

Reviewing a manuscript involves responsibilities that can only be attributed to humans. AI technologies should not be used by reviewers to assist in the scientific review of an article, since the critical thinking and original assessment required for peer review are beyond the scope of these technologies, and there is a risk that the technology may generate incorrect, incomplete or biased conclusions. In any event, the reviewer is responsible and accountable for the content of the review report he/she has written.

In accordance with the confidentiality practices described in 2.3, reviewers should not upload a manuscript under review, or any part thereof, to a generative AI system/tool, as this may compromise the confidentiality and proprietary rights of authors and, if the manuscript contains personally identifiable information, may breach data privacy rights.

This confidentiality requirement also applies to the review report written by reviewers, since it may contain confidential information about the submitted manuscript and/or the authors. Therefore, reviewers should not upload their reports into an AI tool, even if it is only for the purpose of improving language and readability.

2.5. Monitoring ethical issues

Reviewers should be alert to potential ethical issues in the article under review and, if appropriate, report them to the Laboreal Editorial Committee. Examples of potential ethical issues include any substantial similarity, or even overlap, between the manuscript under review and any other published article of which the reviewer is aware; or situations in which reviewers identify statements in the manuscript that refer to observations, derivations, results or arguments that have been previously reported by other authors without there being any citation of the work(s) in question.

3. Editorial Committee’s responsibilities

3.1. Publication decisions

The Laboreal Editorial Committee is responsible for the final decision to accept/reject the submitted article, ensuring absolute impartiality and transparency. The final decision is based exclusively on the academic merit, originality and clarity of the article, as well as its framing and relevance within the scope of Laboreal's Editorial Policy, regardless of factors such as the gender, ethnic origin, nationality or political orientation of the authors.

3.2. Peer review

The Editorial Committee must ensure that the peer review process is fair, impartial and timely. It is the Editorial Committee's responsibility to select reviewers based on their expertise in the relevant field. The Editorial Committee must take into account any potential conflicts of interest declared by potential reviewers and any suggestions for self-citation made by reviewers, with the aim of identifying whether there is any potential for bias.

3.3. Conflicts of interest

In cases where any of the members of the Laboreal Editorial Committee presents a potential conflict of interest, this must be communicated to the other members of the Editorial Committee and to the Journal's Board of Directors. The members of the Editorial Committee must not participate in editorial decisions on articles of which they are authors or co-authors, articles that have been written by authors from the same institution as the members of the Editorial Committee, or articles submitted by an author whose relationship with any of the members of the Editorial Committee could create the perception of bias.

3.4. Confidentiality

Editorial Committee members do not share any information about a submitted manuscript with anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, or potential reviewers.

Editorial Committee members should not upload a manuscript submitted to Laboreal into a generative AI system/tool, as this may infringe on the confidentiality and proprietary rights of the authors. This confidentiality requirement applies to all communications about the manuscript.

3.5. Vigilance over the published record

The Editorial Committee ensures the monitoring and ethical safeguarding of the publication, with close monitoring of requirements regarding possible conflicts of interest, submission of fraudulent data, violation of copyright and intellectual property rights, and plagiarism. Particularly with regard to plagiarism, and without prejudice to what is set in 3.4, the Laboreal Editorial Committee reserves the right to use AI-assisted technologies during the evaluation process to carry out integrity and plagiarism checks and controls. These technologies respect the confidentiality of authors, data security and privacy, and their application by the Editorial Committee is in line with the COPE's guidelines on the use of AI-assisted technologies in decision-making.

In cases where complaints are filed about a submitted or already published article, the Editorial Committee, when faced with suspicion of misconduct in the investigation, must follow the procedures identified in the COPE flowcharts.

3.6. Guidelines in case of retraction or corrections

The Laboreal Editorial Committee is responsible for promoting the publication of corrections, clarifications or retractions when errors or failures are detected.

In the event that misconduct has or seems to have occurred in the course of research reported in a published article, the Editorial Committee will contact the corresponding author. The author then has the opportunity to respond to or comment on the complaint, allegation or dispute.

If a published article is found to contain significant inaccuracies or false or misleading statements, it must be immediately corrected (e.g., in the form of an erratum). Authors must cooperate with the Editorial Committee to retract or correct the article in question. If, after an investigation by the Editorial Committee, it is found that the article is fraudulent and/or the result of plagiarism, in whole or in part, it will be subject to retraction, following the procedures established by the COPE for retraction. The retraction will be identifiable to readers and to Laboreal's indexing databases.