Print version ISSN 0104-5393
On-line version ISSN 2318-0498

ABOUT THIS JOURNAL

Brief History
Open Science Compliance
Focus and Scope
Digital Preservation
Indexing Sources
Bibliographic Sheet
Websites and Social Media
EDITORIAL POLICY
Preprints
Peer Review Process
Open Data
Fees
Ethics and Misconduct Policy, Erratum and Retraction
Conflict of Interest Policy
Adoption of Similarity Checking Software
Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility (DEIA)
Ethical Principles in Research
Copyright
Intellectual Property and Terms of Use

Revista Brasileira de Psicodrama (RBP) was created in 1993 as an official publication vehicle of the Federação Brasileira de Psicodrama (Febrap). In order to speed up the disclosure of its content, in 2022, RBP adopted continuous publication.

RBP proposes to:

Publish researches that are representative of the entire research community, highlighting the growing diversity among researchers, thus enriching the ability to find solutions to research challenges and beyond;

Increase the publication of researches that studies ethnic-racial relations, intersectional issues, and inequalities faced by vulnerable populations;

Take care of related science topics of interest to the psychodramatic community;

Prioritize the publication of original articles and restrict to no more than two experience reports and two reviews per issue.

RBP is committed to open science initiatives and will progressively offer reviewers and corresponding authors the openness of their identities according to the use of the Open Science Compliance Form, which must be submitted as a supplementary file to the manuscript. The Journal also accepts articles previously published in preprint repositories such as SciELO Preprints and EmeRI. We encourage authors to share their data in trusted repositories such as Dryad, Figshare, Zenodo, Mendeley Date, OSF and SciELO Data.

Its scope, in the Human Sciences, falls within the area of psychology, focusing on the specialties of Sociodynamics, Sociometry, Sociatrics, the latter being composed of the subspecialties: Group Psychotherapy, Sociodrama and Psychodrama. It also proposes to take care of related science topics of interest to the psychodramatic community.

This journal follows the standards defined in the Digital Preservation Policy of the SciELO Program, seeking to ensure that the manuscripts published here are available to future generations, following the legislation of ethics and good practices nationally and internationally in publications.

Articles published by the Revista Brasileira de Psicodrama are indexed/added in:

• BVS – Virtual Health Library;
• DOAJ – Directory of Open Access Journals;
• LATINDEX – Regional Information System for Scientific Journals of Latin America, the Caribbean, Spain and Portugal;
• LILACS – Latin American and Caribbean Literature in Health Sciences;
• PEPSIC – Electronic Journals in Psychology;
• REDALYC – Network of Scientific Journals of Open Access
• ROAD – Directory of Open Access Scholarly Resources;
• EmeRi – Emerging Research Information;
• DIADORIM – Directory of editorial policies of Brazilian scientific journals.

The classification of RBP in the Qualis/Capes system is B1.

- Journal Title: Revista Brasileira de Psicodrama
- Abbreviated title: Braz. Psychodrama Rev.
- Publication by: Federação Brasileira de Psicodrama
- Periodicity: Annual
- Publication Mode: Continuous Publication
- Year of creation of the journal: 1993

RBP accepts the publication of preprint articles, which in addition to speeding up the communication of research results, allows the author to receive feedback on the work from readers and make the modifications it deems pertinent.

A preprint is defined as a manuscript that is ready for submission to a journal and that is deposited on trusted preprint servers before or in parallel with submission to a journal.

The use of the preprint is the author's choice, and it is assumed that when submitting the article to the journal, through the Open Science Compliance Form, the name of the Preprint server and the DOI of the Preprint are informed.

The articles submitted to preprints share with the journals the originality in the publication and the evaluation process will not use the double anonymized procedure, since the authorship will be known.

The manuscripts will be received by the editorial department, which will initially check the similarity of the content (plagiarism) through the Similarity Check system. For manuscripts with no or low similarity content, a section editor (SE) will be assigned. The SE will appoint two to four external evaluators (ad hoc reviewers) in anonymized mode, ensuring complete anonymity. Manuscripts submitted previously or in parallel to the preprint platforms will be accepted for evaluation, and RBP may adopt open peer review with prior consent from the authors and reviewers. To this end, authors must submit the Open Science Compliance Form as a supplementary file to the manuscript. Ad hoc reviewers should have no conflict of interest and should be committed to a fair trial and treat articles confidentially. Their conclusions should be objective, pointing out relevant articles that have not been cited. After receiving the evaluations, the SE must make a decision on the manuscript based on the recommendations of the reviewers. He can accept the manuscript as it was submitted, reject it, or request revisions. The manuscript that needs revision will be sent to the author, who must submit a new version and a letter to the editor, in which each recommendation of the reviewers must be commented. Additional and/or amended paragraphs should be highlighted. If the author does not agree with the evaluator's suggestions, it is necessary to explain the reasons. After verifying adherence to the recommendations of the new version, the SE must make the final decision or, exceptionally, refer the article to another round of evaluations if the changes have not been sufficiently addressed. The entire process will be available to the authors at any time. In cases where the authors do not agree with the final decision, one may appeal the decision by sending an email to the editors-in-chief, who will review the process and may reconsider if justified.

Authors will be encouraged, whenever applicable, to deposit and share the data, codes and/or methods used in the production of the manuscript, and it is up to the responsible author to inform, during the submission process, the repository in which the deposit was made, allowing access to reviewers and editors, unless this is not possible for ethical, privacy or confidentiality reasons. To ensure full transparency of the data obtained, RBP requires authors to declare that for data not made available in public repositories, such data is available upon request. In this case, authors should state why these data are not publicly available. Alternatively, authors may make the data available as a supplementary file to the manuscript. If data sharing is not applicable to the article, as no dataset was generated or analyzed during the current study, this should be declared. Survey data includes, but is not limited to raw data, processed data, spreadsheets, statistics, laboratory notebooks, field notebooks, questionnaires, photographs, methodologies, standards, and protocols. Visit re3data.org to identify certified data repositories relevant to the subject area, including Dryad, Figshare, Zenodo, Mendeley Date, OSF and SciELO Data.

RBP does not charge fees for submission or processing of articles, and the editing process is carried out entirely by RBP.

RBP is committed to high standards of ethical behavior at all stages of the publication process in accordance with the procedures established by international institutions, such as Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing, recommended by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), by the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ), the Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association (OASPA) and the World Association of Medical Editors (WAME); Code of Good Scientific Practice, the Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo (FAPESP); and the Guide to Good Practices for Strengthening Ethics in Scientific Publishing of the Online Scientific Electronic Library (SciELO). These procedures apply to the management of the journal and its editorial practices, with emphasis on the relationships with authors and, especially, on the evaluation of their manuscripts.

Published articles that contain seriously flawed data, such that their findings and conclusions cannot be trusted, may be retracted in order to correct the scientific record. Additions, corrections, and retractions may be requested by the author(s) or initiated by the editors-in-chief after discussion with the corresponding author. Readers who detect important errors in the work of others should contact the corresponding author of that work. All additions, corrections, and retractions are subject to the approval of the editors-in-chief, but minor corrections and additions will not be published. The corresponding author must obtain the approval of all co-authors of the article before requesting/submitting additions, corrections, and retractions or providing evidence that such approval has been requested. Additions, corrections, and retractions will contain information about the title of the original article, the list of authors, and the reason for the retraction. The originally published article will remain on the web, except in extraordinary circumstances.

RBP requires authors, upon their submission, to declare conflicts of interest, which may arise when authors, reviewers, or editors have interests that are not fully apparent and that may influence their judgments about what is published. Authors must declare all forms of financial support; any commercial or financial involvements that may present an appearance of conflicts of interest; if an agreement has been signed with any sponsor of the research that prevents you from publishing positive and negative results or that prohibits you from publishing the research without their prior approval. In cases where there is none, authors must declare: "The Author(s) declare that there is no conflict of interest". Articles will be fairly evaluated and will not necessarily be rejected when conflicting interests are declared. The editor-in-chief is responsible for assessing declared conflicts of interest in accordance with the guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

In this way, the following parties are expected to:

*Authors: When they submit a manuscript, they are responsible for acknowledging and disclosing financial or other conflicts that may have influenced their work. They should acknowledge all financial support for the work and other financial or personal connections with respect to the research.

*Reviewers: They should disclose to the editors any conflicts of interest that could influence their opinions about the manuscript and should declare themselves unqualified to review specific manuscripts if they believe that this procedure is appropriate. As in the case of the authors, if there is silence on the part of the evaluators about potential conflicts, it may mean that such conflicts exist and that they have not been disclosed or that conflicts do not exist. Accordingly, evaluators are also asked to provide competitive interest statements, which are used to assess the value of peer reports.

*Editors: They should declare potential conflicts of interest in the evaluation of manuscripts, as well as act to prevent conflicts of interest involving authors and reviewers from compromising ethical standards in publication.

All submissions are submitted to the Similarity Check system for similarity evaluation. In case of detection of a significant degree of similarity with a text already published, the corresponding author will be contacted for adjustments to the text, and the article may be refused, in view of the requirement of originality and originality.

RBP is committed to the principles of Diversity, Equity, Inclusion and Accessibility (DEIA) in its practices aimed at expanding knowledge and improving the human condition. RBP seeks to address systemic inequalities and biases by promoting equitable opportunities for authors and an inclusive environment, representing the wide range of people that psychodrama consists of and serves.

Section editors are guided and motivated to: (1) Improve diversity in the choice of reviewers; (2) Encourage authors to adopt more inclusive citation practices in their decisions; (3) Foster inclusive language.

Editors-in-chief, attentive to increasing diversity and recognizing the barriers that authors, editors, and reviewers belonging to historically excluded populations face due to markers such as race, gender, class, sexuality, disability, among others, always seek to: (1) Avoid discrepancies in the acceptance of articles, focusing on increasing the diversity of authors, reviewers, and editors; (2) Mitigate both the risk and impact of biases on decision-making during the review; (3) Identify alternative processes to disrupt biases; (4) Adopt standards for inclusive culture.

Comissão Nacional de Ética em Pesquisa (Conep) is directly linked to the Conselho Nacional de Saúde (CNS), and provides that all research presents some risk, even if minimal, and it is the researcher's responsibility to pay attention to and mitigate these risks. 

According to the ethical guidelines in research, in order to be ethical, research must: respect the research participant in his/her dignity and autonomy, recognizing his/her vulnerability, assuring his/her willingness to contribute and remain, or not, in the research, through express, free and informed manifestation; weigh between risks and benefits, both known and potential, individual or collective, committing to maximum benefits and minimum harm and risk; ensure that foreseeable damage is avoided; and have social relevance, which guarantees the equal consideration of the interests involved, without losing the sense of their socio-humanitarian destination.

To ensure that the manuscripts published in RBP comply with the ethical principles in research with human beings, it is necessary that the authors pay attention to the Resolutions 466/12 and 510/2016 of the Conselho Nacional de Saúde, respecting the federal legislation on ethics in research.

For research in a virtual environment, the following are taken as a reference: Guidelines for procedures in research with any stage in a virtual environment, established by the Conselho Nacional de Saúde Committee. 

For authors whose research was carried out abroad, one must prove that their research followed the ethical guidelines in research according to the country of origin; recalling, however, that the RBP respects and meets the international ethical guidelines for health-related research involving human beings (CIOMS Ethical Guidelines), prepared by the Council of International Organizations of Medical Sciences (CIOMS) in collaboration with the World Health Organization (WHO).

RBP adopts the Creative Commons Attribution CC BY 4.0 license. Thus, the copyright will belong to the authors, and others will be allowed to distribute, remix, adapt their work and create based on it, even for commercial purposes, as long as proper credit is given. Likewise, authors are responsible for the content of the published article. The authors grant the Revista Brasileira de Psicodrama the rights of first publication. 

All RBP content, except where otherwise specified, is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution CC BY 4.0 license. RBP 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, provided that the full citation is included in the website version of the journal.