Navegação – Mapa do site

InícioApresentaçãoPublication ethics and publicatio...

Publication ethics and publication malpractice statement

MIDAS is a peer-reviewed journal committed to excellence, ensuring the highest ethical standards. The journal and all parties involved (editors, authors, scientific committee and referees) agree and defend the following ethical principles and good publication practices, based on the foundational guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics – COPE and COPE Core Practices.

Editor’s responsibilities

Publication decisions

Editors are responsible for deciding which of the manuscripts submitted to the journal will be published, ensuring impartiality and transparency. MIDAS editors evaluate the manuscripts without regard to the authors' race, age, gender, sexual orientation, disability, ethnic origin, religious belief, citizenship, political orientation, social class or institutional affiliation. Decisions on publication are ultimately based on the article’s contributions to advance knowledge in the field of museums and museology, their capacity for innovation and originality, and its relevance to MIDAS aims and scope.

Peer-review process

Articles are typically reviewed by at least two external and independent referees in a double-blind process. Editors select referees who have knowledge and experience in the relevant field, and that can guarantee an independent evaluation, safeguarding any conflicts of interest and following best practices. Editors ensure that the peer-review process is carried out fairly and impartially.


Materials and information submitted to MIDAS as well as all communications with referees are held in confidence unless otherwise agreed with the relevant authors and referees.

Disclosure and conflicts of interest

Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted proposal to MIDAS will not be used by Editors, or other members involved, for other purposes without the author's explicit written consent.

Any conflicts of interest (e.g., collaborative, ideological, finantial or other relationships or connections) with any of the parts involved, either authors, referees and MIDAS Editors, or institutions associated with the submitted article should be declared to MIDAS.

Editors should not be involved in publication decisions about submitted articles which they have written or co-authored.

Retractions, corrections and clarifications

Editors will publish retractions, corrections and clarifications whenever is needed in line with COPE’s Retraction Guidelines.

Any allegation of misconduct or unethical behaviour by any of the parties involved (editors and other members of the editorial team, authors, scientific committee/referees) will be seriously analysed by MIDAS editors and dealt with in a transparent and reasoned manner. In the event of any suspicion, we follow the COPE flowcharts, available at:

Policies and guidelines

Editors will provide guidance and guidelines to new members of the editorial team, guest editors, authors and referees on their responsibilities and duties, new policies and developments.

Referee’s responsibilities

Conflicts of interest

Referees approached to review manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest arising from professional and institutional collaborations or connections, including personal or family relationships, with any of the authors, commercial entities or institutions associated with the manuscripts should remove themselves from the review process.

Expertise and deadlines

Referees should refuse to review an article if they consider they are not qualified or specialised in the relevant field in question. They should also refuse to review an article if they are unable to meet the deadlines previously set.


Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. These documents, the ideas or data conveyed are not to be shared or used in self-benefit.

Standards of impartiality and objectivity

Reviews should be conducted with impartiality and objectivity. Referees should clearly express their observations and views with supporting arguments. The review should be constructive, detailing aspects of the work that could be clarified, expanded or improved, namely suggesting bibliography. Referees should be able to clarify any doubts raised by the authors about the review.

Originality and acknowledgement of sources

In reviewing articles, referees must inform MIDAS whenever they identify plagiarism, including self-plagiarism, and other irregular situations in the field of copyright. They should also inform when they detect situations in which articles present other people's observations, ideas or arguments without properly indicating the source and recognising authorship.

Author’s responsibilities

Originality and acknowledgement of sources

Authors will submit only original works, and must cite or quote the work and/or words of others in an appropriate manner and in line with the MIDAS’s publication guidelines.

Authorship of ideas and contributions that come from conversations, correspondence, personal and public discussions, or others ways, should also be acknowledged.

It is also unacceptable to use ideas or data accessed in confidentiality without the express consent of the authors.


Authors must present their research work in an accurate manner and provide an objective discussion of the research findings. The sources, methodologies and data supporting the research must be presented with precision and adequately detailed. False or intentionally inaccurate statements are unacceptable behaviour.

Multiple, redundant or simultaneous publication

The same article should not be submitted to more than one publication at the same time. Neither should texts describing the same research and conclusions be published in more than one journal or publication. Self-plagiarism (reusing results from previously published research and presenting them in a new submission as something new and original, without referencing the previous work) is unacceptable behaviour.

Authorship of the article

Authorship should be limited to those who have made a substantive contribution in the design and writing of the text, in the analysis and interpretation of the data, as well as in the revision of the text. It should be noted that the overall supervision of the study alone does not justify authorship. Collaborators who do not meet the criteria for authorship, but who have contributed to the text or project, should be acknowledged in the Acknowledgements section, indicating their specific contribution.

The corresponding author, who is usually responsible for submitting the proposal and for contacts during peer-review and editing process, must ensure that co-authors participate in all stages of the process and approve the final version of the text and agree with its publication.

Conflicts of interest and funding disclosure

Any conflicts of interest (collaborative, institutional, financial, commercial, ideological or other) that may have influenced the results or interpretation of the research included in the manuscript must be declared.

Book and exhibition review authors should not have a connection with the work under review.

All sources of funding that supported the research and publication must be disclosed, including the reference numbers relating to the funding.


Is the author’s responsibility to obtain authorization for publishing any copyrighted materials. All authors must sign an author agreement before publication.

Errors in published works

If an author finds a significant error or inaccuracy in their own published work, the author should promptly notify MIDAS and cooperate to retract or correct the article.

Use of inclusive language

MIDAS recommends using inclusive language in the texts submitted. Inclusive language avoids using certain expressions or words that may be understood as excluding specific groups of people. Such language recognises diversity, expresses respect to all people and is sensitive to differences.

Pesquisar OpenEdition Search

Você sera redirecionado para OpenEdition Search