Submissions

Author Guidelines

PUBLICATION RULES AND EDITORIAL POLICY

BULLETIN - IBCCRIM

Editorial policy produced and determined by the coordination of the Bulletin and the IBCCRIM Publications department, subject to periodic review

1. General information about the journal

Name: IBCCRIM Bulletin
Responsible party: Brazilian Institute of Criminal Sciences (IBCCRIM)
Format: printed and digital
Year of creation: 1993 (without interruptions)
Frequency: monthly
Receipt of manuscripts: permanent and special notices
ISSN: 1676-3661

E-mail address: bolso@ibccrim.org.br

2. Editorial policy:

The IBCCRIM Bulletin is a free monthly publication, in circulation since 1993, which presents to the members of the Brazilian Institute of Criminal Sciences highly relevant works on current topics of Criminal Law, Procedural Law Criminal Law, Criminology and Human Rights, as well as a collection of case law from Brazilian courts on criminal law.

In order to cover this editorial scope, the journal is divided into the following sections:

a) Doctrine Notebook (Criminal Law; Criminal Procedure; Criminology; Human Rights; Childhood and Youth)

b) Jurisprudence Notebook (State Courts; Higher Courts; International Courts)

Furthermore, the Bulletin, aiming at the dialogue between the structuring of a solid doctrine in criminal sciences and its impact on judicial practice, also has the regular column Dialogues. In this section, an author will discuss a certain controversial topic that is at the center of the pragmatic and academic debate. In the subsequent publication, a second author will make critical comments, also in text form, on the original article. In a third moment, if there is interest, the author of the original text may comment on the criticisms made in the previous edition.

The idea behind this space is in line with the spirit that inspires the recovery of the necessary dogmatic dialogue between various scholars, in order to promote a genuine debate on the most diverse themes of criminal science. Finally, with the aim of disseminating important scientific works published nationally and internationally, especially academic research, there is the Critical Reviews section, which presents brief comments on such publications, providing criticism and encouraging scientific debate. Occasionally, interviews assessed by the coordinators as relevant to promoting scientific debate concerning the scope of the journal will also be accepted and published. 3. Roles and duties of authors in the editorial process Editors must act in compliance with the integrity guidelines, in an objective and impartial manner, without any type of discrimination or pursuit of interests other than the scientific merit of the research. Those responsible for the journal's editorial process are divided into roles, whose duties and ethical obligations are determined as follows (for more information, see the PKP Guide https://pkpschool.sfu.ca/courses/becoming-an-editor/):

Editorial Team: The editors are responsible for the journal's editorial process, especially for the preliminary review stages (desk review), distribution to reviewers, analysis of reviews, guidance for rounds of corrections and final decision.

The Bulletin's structuring editorial team (NEE) is made up of editors-in-chief, assistant editors and associates. The NEE makes decisions on the journal's guidelines and merits, and may occasionally request recommendations from the editorial board and assistant editors.

Editors-in-chief:

The Editor-in-Chief oversees the journal's editorial process, reviewing and determining its editorial policy, together with the other editors and members of the board. Occasionally, the editor-in-chief is responsible for deciding on requests for revisions of editorial decisions adopted by the team or reports/suspicions of scientific malpractices. He/she is the representative of the Bulletin, fulfilling the role of publicizing and publicizing the journal. The editor-in-chief may take charge of the editorial process of a given section and articles of the journal or designate an associate/assistant editor in charge.

Associate editors are researchers/professors responsible for managing the editorial process of the journal or of a special thematic dossier and for assisting the editors-in-chief in general matters of organization and direction of the Bulletin.

Assistant editors are researchers/professors responsible for managing the editorial process of a given section of the journal or of designated articles, under the supervision of the editor-in-chief and associate editors.

The Editorial Board is composed of PhD professors, preferably affiliated with PPGs and foreigners, with outstanding scientific and editorial knowledge, who are responsible for recommending the journal's policies, suggesting thematic sections and dossiers, being consulted about possible divergences in the editorial process, indicating new reviewers to join the Bulletin's editorial board, publicizing and advertising the journal, and occasionally evaluating (in a blind/anonymous system) submitted articles that directly relate to their knowledge.

Body of Reviewers/Reviewers: composed of researchers with master's degrees, PhDs and PhD students, with outstanding scientific knowledge in the area of ​​criminal sciences, who perform the function of evaluating, through opinions in a specific form of the Bulletin, the articles submitted to the journal, without the identity/identification of their authors. Their role seeks to contribute to the selection and improvement of submitted articles, in an objective, confidential, respectful and impartial manner. Any conflict of interest must be notified to the editorial team.

4. Submission rules

Submission of papers should be done through the following address (https://publicacoes.ibccrim.org.br/index.php/boletim_1993/index). It is recommended to use a Microsoft Word text processor (doc or docx formats). If another text processor is used, the files should be saved in RTF format (commonly readable by all text processors).

4.1 Submission conditions

No minimum degree is required to submit articles for the evaluation process.

a. The article must be unpublished; therefore, not published in any other scientific journal and/or communication channels. It is worth noting that originality should not be confused with originality, and the topic addressed by the article may have already been addressed by other authors and/or publications;

b. All articles will be subject to inspection with an anti-plagiarism program. The following texts are not considered unpublished: published on the internet; already published abroad (even in another language); published in the proceedings of scientific events. Articles that consist of reduced versions of master's dissertations or doctoral theses, even if published in full in the thesis databases of postgraduate programs, and those previously published in the proceedings of scientific events, but which present effective improvements due to debates and subsequent studies, will be considered unpublished (highlight such modifications to the editorial team in the submission email). Unjustified changes to previously published works will only be tolerated up to a limit of 30% coincidence of characters.

c. Thus, in any of the above-mentioned cases, when an identical or substantially similar work has been published by the author in another media outlet, even if in another language, this fact must be expressly stated in the text and informed to the editor at the time of submission, under penalty of prohibition of new submissions for a period of one year.

d. Translations of articles may also be submitted for consideration by the journal, provided that they are accompanied by the authorization of their respective authors and, when necessary, of the journal that holds their publication rights. However, the decision on whether or not to publish them will be the prerogative of the Bulletin's coordination.

e. Once an article has been submitted for evaluation, with a view to its possible publication, the simultaneous submission of the same work to another journal or publication is prohibited, under penalty of prohibition of submission of new works to this journal for a period of one year;

f. After receiving and registering the work, we will contact you to confirm receipt and request any missing information.

5. Mandatory formal elements

a. Articles must be preceded by a presentation page, which must include: title of the work, name of the author (or authors), qualification (academic status, titles with year obtained, institutions to which they belong and main activity performed), e-mail, link to the LATTES curriculum and ORCID number.

b. Articles must have a minimum of 7,000 (seven thousand) and a maximum of 21,000 (twenty-one thousand) characters, with spaces - counting all formal elements in the text, from the title to the references (approximately 8 to 10 pages). The abstract and keywords, in both languages, will also be counted within the character limit. It is suggested that footnotes and citations (both from doctrine and jurisprudence) be used sparingly. The Editorial Board may suggest that the author(s) reduce the text at their discretion, for the purpose of its accommodation in the Bulletin.

c. As a font, use Times New Roman, size 12. Paragraphs should have 1.5 line spacing; top and bottom margins 2.0 cm and side margins 3.0 cm. The paper size formatting should be A4.

d. Paragraphs must be justified. No indents or spaces should be used before or after each topic.

e. Papers may be written in Portuguese, Spanish, English, French, German or Italian. In any case, the title of the paper, the respective abstract (up to 100 words) and five keywords must be indicated in the language of the article and in English.

f. Papers must have the following elements in Portuguese and English: title; abstract; keywords;

g. Papers must contain specific items for introduction, final considerations (conclusions) and references.

h. The Bulletin will not be responsible for making any additions to the papers, such as inserting an abstract or keywords, which are the exclusive responsibility of the author of the article.

i. The title of the paper should not be excessively long, but it must clearly present the theme and the delimitation of its object. It is recommended that it not exceed the limit of two lines in all caps. If necessary, the editors may suggest shortening the title.

j. The qualifications/affiliations of the author(s) must follow the following criteria: start with the academic title (from the most recent to the first); if the author is a teacher, insert the relevant data immediately after the title; then complete the additional information (associations or other institutions of which the author is a member and their respective state and city); end with the position or profession performed (other than in the academic field). An e-mail address for contact should be provided. Example:

PhD in Criminal Procedural Law from PUC-SP. Professor of Criminal Procedural Law at the USP Law School. Member of IBCCRIM. Federal Judge in Londrina. ORCID. E-mail.

k. Authors are requested to report in a footnote any funding or benefits received from commercial sources (e.g., if the article is the result of a commissioned opinion), and to declare that there is no conflict of interest that compromises the scientific validity of the work presented. If the work is the result of research funded by funding agencies (excluding scientific initiation, master's and doctoral scholarships or calls for proposals for programs such as PROEX, PROAP, PROSUP and similar versions of state funding agencies), this information must be included in a footnote, specifying the call for proposals from which the funding was provided.

l. References must follow the standard NBR 6023/2018 (from the Brazilian Association of Technical Standards - ABNT). Complete bibliographical references should only appear in the list of REFERENCES at the end of the text. Example: PEREIRA, Frederico V. Delação premiada: legitimidade e processo. 3rd ed. Curitiba: Juruá, 2016. p. 45. Footnotes do not include a full reference, and the author/date/page format may be used. This same format should be used in the body of the text when citing excerpts from works, and the information should appear in parentheses. Examples: PEREIRA, 2016, p. 45, when in footnotes; and (PEREIRA, 2016, p. 45), when in the body of the text.

m. Words in a foreign language should be italicized. Bold or underlined text should never be used.

n. Direct citations (textual transcription of part of the work of the consulted author) in the body of the text should follow the NBR 1052 (ABNT/2002) standard, that is: - Direct citations of up to three lines should be contained in double quotation marks, in the body of the paragraph to which they refer. Example: Barbour (1971, p. 35) describes: “The study of the morphology of active terrains [...]”. OR: “Don’t move, pretend you’re dead.” (CLARAC; BONNIN, 1985, p. 72)

– Direct quotations of more than three lines should be highlighted from the text, indented 4 cm from the left margin, in smaller font (size 10) than that used in continuous text, single-spaced between lines and without quotation marks.

Teleconferencing allows an individual to participate in a national or regional meeting without having to leave their place of origin. Common types of teleconferencing include the use of television, telephone and computer. Through audioconferencing, using the local telephone company, an audio signal can be emitted in a room of any size. (NICHOLS, 1993, p. 181).

o. Legislative or jurisprudential references must contain all the data necessary for their proper identification and location. When citing websites, the link must be indicated, introduced by the expression “Available at:” and the date of access, preceded by the expression “Accessed on:”. Dates must follow the ABNT universal abbreviation standard. Example: August 20, 2012; September 15, 2018; March 22, 2019, etc.

p. It is suggested that diagrams, organizational charts, tables and graphs be inserted into the text using images, in order to avoid distortions in subsequent layout.

6. Scientific nature

Articles must be scientific in nature, defining and clarifying one (or more) specific problem, summarizing previous studies on the topic and informing readers of the current state of a given area of ​​research. In addition, the work must seek to identify relationships, contradictions, gaps and inconsistencies in the literature and provide suggestions for solving the problems identified.

Preference will be given to articles that present an original and effective contribution to criminal sciences, based on solid references and/or original empirical research. Thus, the work must be a reliable source for the reader to know the current state of each area regarding the topic addressed. It is necessary to reference all the information included in it and, in addition, any statistical correction methods that may be used must be identified and justified.

7. Assumptions of Ethical Integrity in Research

a. Authorship: All people who contributed to the research must be indicated. Each author must have participated sufficiently in the work to be able to publicly assume responsibility for its content. Your participation should include: a) the conception or design or analysis and interpretation of data, or both; b) writing the manuscript or its review, when it includes important intellectual criticism of its content; c) final approval of the version to be published. Mere participation in data collection does not justify authorship.[1]

b. Co-authorship: When publishing results obtained through collective research, it is necessary to ensure direct and effective intellectual contribution and the consent of all collaborators. The provision of financial and infrastructure resources is not an indication of co-authorship.

c. Prohibition of Plagiarism: When an idea or formulation used in the work is not evidently in the public domain in the research area in question, it is assumed that it is an original contribution. If this is not the case, the idea or formulation must be expressly credited, under penalty of plagiarism.

d. Prohibition of Self-plagiarism: When identical or substantially similar work has been published in another media outlet, even if in another language, this fact must be expressly stated in the text and reported to the editor at the time of submission. Failure to expressly mention this fact will constitute self-plagiarism.

e. Responsibility: The author or, where applicable, each of the authors is responsible for the quality of the work as a whole, unless the limits of their contribution are expressly and precisely indicated.

f. When the work uses data obtained through unpublished empirical research involving human beings (such as, for example, interviews or questionnaires), the project must be analyzed by the ethics committee of the Higher Education Institution to which the author is affiliated. This information must be expressed in the body of the article or in a footnote, identifying the ethics committee, the institution and the number of the process in which the respective project was approved.

g. Informed consent form (ICF): Whenever, due to the purpose or other circumstances of the research, it is possible to identify the interviewees, the submission of an ICF of the interviewees who can be identified will be required.

h. Conflict of interest: When there is a possible conflict of interest, the authors must inform the editorial team at the time of submitting the work. The editors will decide on the configuration of a conflict of interest by assessing whether the scientific validity of the work has been compromised.

i. Responsibility for Data

Sources: Whenever reference is made to data, its source must be indicated.

Confidentiality Agreement: Whenever a work uses data obtained through CT, the authors must send the term at the time of submitting the work so that its compliance can be verified.

Manipulation: Whenever statistical correction methods are used, they must be identified and justified.

8. Parameters of the scientific editorial process and process of verifying complaints

The Bulletin's main objective is to produce consistent scientific knowledge, based on an editorial process of control, evaluation and review of works guided by parameters of scientificity and integrity in accordance with national and international bodies and institutions related to scientific publishing. In this sense, the guidelines of the following organizations are used as guides for the editorial process:

Brazilian Association of Scientific Editors
PKP guidelines for editors and reviewers
WAME
Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and its guide to good editorial practices
FAPESP Code of Good Scientific Practices
CNPq basic guidelines for integrity in scientific activity
Elsevier publishing Ethics Resource Kit (PERK) for editors
SCIELO guide to good practices for strengthening ethics in scientific publishing

8.1 Process for analyzing suspicions

Reports and suspicions of acts that violate the guidelines for scientific integrity will be analyzed by the editorial team of the Bulletin, with respect for the adversarial system and with reasons for decisions. External experts may occasionally be contacted to issue an opinion.

Anyone may at any time report acts that violate the guidelines of scientific integrity to: bulletin@ibccrim.org.br

8.2 Sanctions applicable to proven acts of violation of the guidelines of integrity

The following punishments may be imposed, individually or cumulatively, on anyone who is proven to have committed an act that violates the guidelines of editorial and scientific integrity:

communication in an instructive tone about the issue;

warning about the conduct;

publication of news or an editorial about the issue;

formal communication of the fact to the institution of origin or to the funding agency;

suspension or exclusion of the evaluator or editor;

formal retraction of the published article;

ban on new submissions for a certain period;

formal communication of the case to the competent authorities for investigation

9. Editorial responsibility

Blind reviews must be carried out with rigor, objectivity, impartiality and promptness. The interest in carrying out the best evaluation must prevail over other interests, such as strict compliance with stipulated deadlines. Differences in judgments should not be taken as sufficient grounds for issuing an unfavorable opinion.

The reviewer must treat confidentiality and not make personal use of the information to which he/she has had access in the exercise of his/her role as an evaluator.

The reviewer must abstain from his/her role as an evaluator, due to a potential conflict of interest, when he/she maintains regular scientific collaboration, in research, publication, guidance or tutoring activities, or when he/she has a family or emotional relationship with any of the researchers responsible for the proposal submitted for evaluation.

All cases in which ethical violations are verified will be duly investigated by the Bulletin's coordination through study, debate and the implementation of the appropriate measures.

10. Privacy Policy

The names and addresses provided in this Bulletin will be used exclusively for the services provided by this publication and will not be made available for other purposes or to third parties.

a. The Bulletin adopts a double-blind peer review system, so that reviewers and authors remain anonymous, while respecting the confidentiality of the reviewer's data at the time of submission to the author.

b. Regarding the reviews eventually issued by the Bulletin's reviewers, although the double-blind review system is used (in which the author and reviewers do not have reciprocal information at the time of the review), after the editorial process is completed, from the moment the final decision is made by the editorial team, there is no prohibition on the publication of the review by its author (reviewer). For example, the publication of the content of the reviews in the PUBLONS system is authorized (and suggested). In other words, the copyright on the reviews belongs to their respective authors (reviewers). The right to anonymity regarding the evaluation is available to the reviewer, who may choose to publish the opinion issued later.

c. Based on this logic, it should be emphasized that the authors of the submitted articles cannot publicize any opinions received, except in the case of express authorization from the reviewer.

d. Finally, when submitting the article for the editorial process of the Bulletin, the author is aware of and authorizes the eventual disclosure of the opinion issued by any reviewer of the journal, for example, in the PUBLONS system.

11. Critical reviews, opinions, commentaries on case law and interviews

a. Book reviews: merely descriptive reviews will not be accepted. Only critical reviews of books of legal and scientific interest for the editorial scope of the journal will be published, with the citation of other references, and not just a summary of the specific work. The text size must respect the limits and requirements of the information necessary for a good understanding of the text analyzed.

b. Case law comments may be submitted to the Bulletin and will be published, respecting the rules above, with a character limit of 21,000 (twenty-one thousand). There must be a critical analysis of the judgment, based on representative doctrinal references on the topic under study.

c. The opinions must address a relevant and current case of practical implementation regarding a theoretical discussion important to criminal sciences. It must be based on consistent and up-to-date references. If there is any type of funding, this must be disclosed in a footnote, in order to attest to possible conflicts of interest.

d. Interviews with renowned researchers may be proposed or submitted to the Bulletin, based on the combined evaluation of the following criteria:

Does it represent an advance in knowledge that deserves to be disseminated to society?

Does it contribute to the popularization of scientific knowledge?

Does it present significant innovations?

Can it have an impact on society or on the definition of public policies?

In addition to the target audience (journalists), can the interview also be used by decision-makers, researchers, students and the general public?
Length: should consist of 4 to 10 questions and the text should contain a maximum of 21,000 (twenty-one thousand) characters with spaces;
Language: can be sent in Portuguese, English or Spanish;
Image: must be accompanied by a photo of the interviewee, which must be sent as an attached file (.jpg or .gif), with good resolution (over 100 KB) and with the interviewee's prior authorization. If the interviewee is interested, an image that complements the content of the interview may also be included;
Data about the interviewee: brief text with data about the interviewee, containing information about the curriculum, including the institution to which he/she is affiliated, summarized scientific production, academic background, etc.;
Lead: interviews must be accompanied by a lead, which consists of a short text that provides the reader with basic information about the topic. The lead must contain information that answers the following questions: “What” and/or “Who?”, “When?”, “Where?”, “How?”, and “Why?”.

e. The evaluation of reviews, case law comments, opinions and interviews will be carried out by the editorial team of the Bulletin based on the relevance, scientificity and pertinence of the work, in addition to the author's title, without sending it to blind peer review.

12. Evaluation and publication process

Formal preliminary review (desk review): Once the manuscript has been received, it will initially undergo a preliminary review by the editors (chief, assistants, executives or associate editors) of the journal, which will determine its submission for peer review. At this point, the review will be limited to the essential formal aspects of the article, in accordance with the rules set out above, analyzing the following aspects:

Does the work comply with the publication standards of the Bulletin?
Is the work compatible with the editorial line of the journal?
Does the work present appropriate and scientific language, without excessive errors? (consider that there will be a grammatical and spelling review if approved)
Is the work original?
Is the topic addressed current and/or relevant?
Does the article use up-to-date references and references from national and foreign authors who are representative of the topic addressed?

a. In the event of preliminary rejection, the author will be notified by sending the opinion issued with the reasons for the rejection. In such a situation, the article may be submitted again for evaluation for a subsequent volume, if it remains original and the deficiencies indicated are corrected.

b. During the peer review, if there are two disagreeing opinions on whether or not to publish the work, it will be forwarded to a third reviewer. In exceptional cases, the work may be forwarded to a guest reviewer, provided that the specificity of the topic and the reviewer's notable knowledge in the area justify this. Likewise, if due to the inertia of the reviewers the conclusion of the analysis remains pending for a long period and due to a tie of opposing decisions, the Bulletin's coordination may break the tie by preparing a Minerva opinion.

c. During the reviewer's evaluation, the works may be rejected, approved or approved with reservations (with suggestions for necessary corrections). In the latter case, the author will be informed about the suggested corrections, and may correct them or maintain their original format, with justification. In any case, the final decision regarding publication of the work is made by the journal's editorial team, which may make its publication conditional on more than one round of corrections if the justifications presented for not adopting the recommendations do not appear to be consistent and satisfactory.

d. In all cases, anonymous opinions (without identifying the reviewer) are made available to the authors.

13. Copyright (Open Access Policy)

This journal provides immediate free access to its content, following the principle that making scientific knowledge freely available to the public provides greater global democratization of knowledge.

The IBCCRIM Bulletin adopts and complies with the DOAJ definition of open access policy: "Open Access is the condition in which the copyright holder of an academic work grants usage rights to others through an open license (Creative Commons or equivalent), allowing immediate and free access to the work, and authorizing any user to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search or link to the full texts of articles, crawl them for indexing, use them as data in software, or employ them for any other lawful purpose."

As of 2024, articles published in the IBCCRIM Bulletin are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. Articles published until 2023 adopted the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

Archiving and distribution

In addition to authorizing the public archiving of articles submitted in pre-print and post-print versions under peer control, the final published PDF can be fully archived on any open access server, indexer, repository or personal website, such as Academia.edu and ResearchGate.

The IBCCRIM Bulletin OJS is hosted in the Cloud, which guarantees a full backup of the system periodically.

14. Rights over opinions and publicity

With regard to opinions eventually issued by the Bulletin's reviewers, although the double-blind control system is used (in which the author and reviewers do not have reciprocal information at the time of the evaluation), after the editorial process is completed, from the moment the final decision is made by the editorial team, there is no prohibition on the publication of the opinion by its author (reviewer). For example, the publication of the content of the evaluations in the PUBLONS system is authorized (and suggested).

In other words, the copyright on the opinions belongs to their respective authors (reviewers). The right to anonymity in relation to the evaluation is available to the reviewer, who may choose to publish the opinion issued later.

Based on this logic, it should be emphasized that the authors of the submitted articles cannot publicize any opinions received, except in the case of express authorization from the reviewer.

Finally, when submitting the article for the editorial process of the Bulletin, the author is aware of and authorizes the eventual disclosure of the opinion issued by any evaluator of the journal, for example, in the PUBLONS system.

15. Review, layout, printing and publication

Once the editorial process of selecting articles is complete, the works approved and selected for the respective volume are sent for review and layout, which are carried out by IBCCRIM.

Then, the grammatical and spelling review is carried out, as well as the formatting (layout) of the files, which are returned to IBCCRIM. Then, close to the date of publication, the author will be contacted again to analyze the suggestions for post-review corrections and check the formatting, with a maximum deadline of 03 (three) days for a response. In the event of inertia, the corrections suggested by the review will be accepted in full. At this time, the author is requested to refrain from making major changes to the text, but only to carry out the suggested review and essential updates.

Regarding spelling revision, IBCCRIM adopts the spelling correction (spelling, accentuation, hyphenation, etc.) of the most recent Orthographic Agreement (2009) in force (mandatory since 01/01/2016), even for citations of originals prior to the Agreement. An exception is made for old documents in contexts in which the preservation of the original spelling has importance and historiographical and/or linguistic significance, etc.

Then, the articles, with the authors' approvals and rejections of the revision suggestions, are forwarded for final layout and publication.

The Bulletin adopts a stance of full respect for the author, in order to prohibit any changes without their approval (except for the lack of a response within the specified deadline), even if they appear to be “mere spelling corrections”. Any attitude different from this guideline is repudiated by the journal's editorial team.

16. Criteria for waiting and preference for publication

a. The publication of papers approved by peer review and selected by the journal's editors follows the chronological order of submission and approval, with the exception of invited authors. However, due to the rules imposed by the Qualis/CAPES committee, there are criteria for evaluation and preferential publication, which can be met by authors aiming at greater agility in the publication of their work.

b. Due to the rules of exogeny, articles by authors representing the State of São Paulo are limited to 50% of the total number of papers published per volume, so that there is a specific queue for articles that fit this circumstance;

c. Given the imposed quality rules, each published volume will contain 30% of the articles with an author who has a doctorate degree, so that there is a limit to the publication of papers without an author with this degree;

d. Articles co-authored by permanent professors of Higher Education Institutions Programs from different states of the federation, with duly identified affiliation;

e. Original articles by professionals affiliated with foreign Higher Education Institutions;

f. Articles in English or other languages, even if the author is Brazilian;

g. Articles resulting from research funded by funding agencies (excluding scientific initiation, master's and doctoral scholarships or from calls for proposals for programs such as PROEX, PROAP, PROSUP and similar versions of state funding agencies) duly identified in the text (specify the call for proposals resulting in the funding in a footnote).

h. In addition to these hypotheses, preference may be given to works that address topics of imminent relevance and that may become obsolete due to the delay in publication. This situation is determined by decision of the editorial team of the Bulletin and may be suggested by the reviewers in their evaluation.

i. It is worth noting, however, that the criteria set out in this topic determine the preference of the article in the evaluation and publication process, but are not indispensable requirements. All will be subject to peer review, which will adopt identical parameters in the selection, aiming at the quality scientific production in the journal.

17. Guest authors

As decided by its editorial team, the Bulletin may invite authors to publish articles on specific topics, due to their relevance, timeliness and notable critical contribution to criminal sciences. In such a situation, exceptionally, there will be no peer review (double blind peer review) and attention to the queue of those approved for publication. According to the Qualis/CAPES rule, the percentage of articles by guest authors is limited to 25% per volume.

18. Special volumes and dossiers

The Bulletin may publish special volumes or specific dossiers in its regular volumes, due to the relevance and pertinence of the topic, as decided by the editorial team and its editorial board. The volume or dossier may be the responsibility of an associate editor who has relevant knowledge on the topic. In such a situation, a notice will be published containing the necessary information, such as rules and deadlines.