1. Ethics and responsibilities of authors

1.1 Responsibilities of authors

Authors of a manuscript should present original research with an accurate account of the work performed along with an objective discussion of its significance. Authors are responsible for the truth and accuracy of their data. Underlying data should be represented accurately in the manuscript. Upon request, authors are required to send relevant documentation (raw data, samples, records, etc.) for verification of its validity. After publication, research data should be retained by the authors as per the policies of the organization to which they belong.

A manuscript should contain sufficient details and references to permit readers to replicate the work, if required. Fraudulent or deliberately inaccurate statements or data constitute unethical scientific behavior and may lead to rejection of a manuscript or retraction of a published article. Authors should also ensure that the work is entirely original. Where data, statements or derivations of another published work are reproduced, they must be appropriately cited or quoted, in compliance with existing laws on plagiarism. Excessive and inappropriate self-citation, text recycling, or coordinated efforts among several authors to collectively self-cite are strongly discouraged. Plagiarism in all its forms constitutes unethical behavior and is unacceptable.

Authors should ensure that a submitted manuscript reports original work and that its contents have not been published elsewhere (partially or in full) in any form or language, unless the work is an expansion of a previous work that is duly cited. A single study should not be unduly split into several parts that are not completely separable for scientific reporting for the purpose of multiple submissions. Concurrent submission of one manuscript to more than one journal, or submitting an already published paper to another journal, is considered unethical behavior.

If authors use their previously published or under-review work, they must properly acknowledge and cite the original work and clearly identify the unique contributions of the submitted manuscript compared to the earlier work, ensuring that any re-use complies with copyright policies. The journal will deal with cases of text recycling according to COPE guidelines (COPE Council. Handling concurrent and duplicate submissions).

If a similar or identical manuscript is later found to have been published elsewhere in any form, CEBRAEV and Editora Alumni IN remain free to report or lodge a complaint to the relevant publisher(s) and institution(s) to which the author(s) belong.

1.2 Authorship and author contributions

The names of the authors are to be listed in the manuscript in order of their contributions, and all authors take responsibility for their own contributions. Authorship should be limited to those who have:

1. 1Made a significant contribution to the conception or design of the work; or the acquisition, analysis or interpretation of data; or the creation of new software/models used in the work; or have drafted the work or substantively revised it;
2. 2Approved the submitted version (and any substantially modified version that involves the author’s contribution to the study);
3. 3Agreed to be personally accountable for their own contributions and for ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated, resolved and documented in the literature (COPE Discussion Document: Authorship).

All those who have made substantial contributions should be listed as co-authors. Those who have participated in certain substantive aspects of the manuscript (e.g., language editing) should be recognized in the Acknowledgments section.

For transparency, authors should include an Author Contribution Statement following the CRediT (Contributor Roles Taxonomy) framework, outlining individual contributions such as: conceptualization, data generation, data analysis, funding acquisition, investigation, methodology, project guidance, software development and validation, writing — original draft, and writing — review & editing.

The corresponding/submitting author is responsible for including the contributions of all authors in the manuscript, before the References section, at the time of submission.

Authors should carefully consider the list and order of authors before submitting and provide a definitive list at the time of the original submission. Requests for any addition, deletion or rearrangement of author names in the authorship list under exceptional circumstances should be made before the manuscript is accepted for publication. Such requests should include specific reason(s) and written confirmation from all authors (original and proposed) that they agree with the change without any conflict of interest. The decision of the Editor-in-Chief on the matter is final and binding. After publication, no change in the list or order of authors is allowed.

The corresponding author should ensure that: (a) all co-authors have agreed to the full content of the manuscript, including the author list and author contribution statements; (b) there is no conflict of interest; (c) the submission satisfies all stated policies of the journal; and (d) all authors have agreed to its submission for publication.

The journal does not support any unethical practice that inappropriately attributes authorship credit. Authorship misconduct includes: ghost authorship (exclusion of significant contributors), gift authorship (giving authorship to someone who has not made contributions), substitution authorship (replacement of rightful authors with others), coercive authorship (forcing inclusion based on power dynamics) and artificial collaboration (fabricating collaborations to increase apparent credibility).

If suspicion is raised about authorship, the peer review process will be suspended and an investigation will be conducted to identify any guest, ghost or gift authorship. Based on the findings, authors will be advised to correct the authorship list (COPE Flowcharts — Ghost, guest or gift authorship).

1.3 Pre- and post-publication corrections

Authors have an obligation to correct any misreporting once they discover it, during the processing of the manuscript or after publication. In such a case, the author(s) should immediately write to the Editor-in-Chief and explain how the error affects the manuscript. The decision on how to correct it (erratum, corrigendum or retraction) will depend on the nature of the error.

Minor corrections (spelling or grammatical errors) that do not alter the understanding of the content will not be made after publication. An erratum will be published when mistakes are recognized in the published article that remained unnoticed during editing and layout. A corrigendum will be published when the authors realize that errors in the published article could affect the validity or accuracy of the scientific content.

If a reader detects a genuine error in a published article, they may submit a letter to the Editor-in-Chief. The author, editor and reviewer will then assess the validity of the error. An appropriate corrigendum may be published for genuine errors.

Post-publication discussions may be submitted as Letters to the Editor within 3 months following publication, scientifically justifying the need for discussion. Letters should not exceed 3 pages, including references, figures, tables and captions. The title should begin with “Discussion of”, followed by the title and DOI of the original article. The original authors will be invited to respond. The Editorial Board may consider a post-publication discussion, after peer review, if it is established to be constructive and useful to the community.

1.4 Conflict of interest and competing interests

During submission of a manuscript, all authors and co-authors are required to disclose any potential conflict of interest (e.g., employment, consulting fees, sponsoring organization policy, research contract, patent license, advisory affiliations), either stating that “No conflict of interest exists” or describing the nature of any potential conflict. In retail research, ties to companies, chains or trade associations in the sector studied must be disclosed.

Authors are responsible for obtaining any permission necessary to include images or artwork in their articles for which they do not hold copyright. The source(s) of financial support for the reported research should also be disclosed in the manuscript.

1.5 Journal publishing agreement

While submitting a manuscript, the authors will submit the “Journal Publishing Agreement Form” certifying that:

1. 1Each author has participated sufficiently in one or more activities of the reported research work and is responsible for them; the contribution of each author is stated in the manuscript; all authors have seen and agreed to the submitted version.
2. 2The contents of the manuscript have not been published in any form, partially or in full, anywhere to date; the authors have neither submitted nor will submit the same elsewhere until a decision is communicated.
3. 3The data and results embodied in the manuscript are from original research work.
4. 4The authors have satisfied themselves that the full contents of the manuscript do not attract plagiarism, text-recycling or self-plagiarism regulations.
5. 5The author(s) undertake full responsibility for the data, statements and opinions contained in the manuscript. CEBRAEV and Editora Alumni IN are fully absolved of the same.
6. 6Due mention of the organization(s) where the research was undertaken has been made and funding obtained is duly acknowledged.
7. 7There is no conflict of interest in the manuscript.
8. 8The authors have included information on any preprint submission and agree to update the preprint record with a DOI and URL link to the Version of Record, if accepted.
9. 9If the reported research involved humans or animals as subjects, it was carried out in accordance with applicable laws and ethics, and informed consents were obtained and are on record.
10. 10The authors have conformed to the highest standards of all ethical policies of the journal.
11. 11Revisions as per reviewer/editor comments will be carried out in a time-bound manner; the authors agree that, if requested, they will make available the data upon which the manuscript is based.
12. 12Except in an extraordinary situation, the manuscript will not be withdrawn during review/processing; withdrawal requires written permission of the Editor-in-Chief.

1.6 Ethical oversight policy

As per COPE, “ethical oversight should include, but not be limited to, policies on consent to publication, publication on vulnerable populations, ethical conduct of research using human subjects, ethical conduct of research using animals, handling confidential data and ethical business/marketing practices” (COPE Ethics Toolkit).

Authors are required to ensure that no violation of this policy has occurred. Where the research involved human participants, the authors confirm that the work was carried out in accordance with applicable laws and ethics and that informed consents were taken and are on record or described within the article. Where applicable, ethics committee approval must be reported (in Brazil, the CEP/CONEP system and CNS Resolution No. 510/2016, for research in the humanities and social sciences).

• Consumer and customer personal data: research that processes personal data must comply with Brazil’s General Data Protection Law (LGPD, Law No. 13,709/2018) and the principles of anonymization and data minimization.
• Interventions in organizations: in technological articles and experience reports, authors must declare that they have the authorization of the organization involved to disclose the data and information presented, safeguarding confidential or strategic information.

1.7 Authorship and artificial intelligence tools

Artificial intelligence (AI) tools such as ChatGPT or other large language models (LLMs) may not be considered or listed as an article’s author because they cannot take responsibility for the work, sign copyright or license agreements, or assert the presence or absence of conflicts.

The use of generative AI (GenAI) and AI-assisted technologies in the writing process should be done with human oversight and control. Authors who use GenAI technologies in writing a manuscript, producing images or graphical elements, or collecting and analyzing data must be transparent in disclosing, in the Method section (or Declarations section), how and which AI tool was used.

Authors are fully responsible for the content of their manuscript, including those parts produced by an AI tool, and are thus liable for any breach of publication ethics (COPE Position Statement on AI).

1.8 Research misconduct

Authors must not engage in any form of research misconduct, including but not limited to: self-plagiarism or text recycling; plagiarized authorship; data or image manipulation/fabrication; breaches of copyright or use of third-party material without proper permission; citation manipulation; duplicate submission or publication; misrepresentation of affiliations; peer review manipulation; failure to disclose competing interests; and unethical research practices.

Manuscripts containing citations intended solely to artificially inflate the citation count of a specific author or journal constitute misconduct. Similarly, manuscripts with fabricated or falsified results constitute misconduct. Any detected data fabrication, falsification or image manipulation that violates ethical guidelines will be investigated and penalized.

The journal takes all forms of misconduct seriously and will take all necessary action, in accordance with COPE guidelines (COPE Flowcharts — Systematic manipulation of the publication process), to protect the integrity of the scholarly record.

Upon discovery of research misconduct, at any stage from submission to post-publication, the Editor-in-Chief, in consultation with the handling editor, has full authority to reject the article or retract the publication. In cases of repeated breaches, the Editor-in-Chief reserves the right to notify the author’s institution(s). The journal may also disable the account of the author(s) concerned for a period of one to three years.

1.9 Article sharing policy

Submitted version / author’s original manuscript (AOM)

The AOM can be posted at any time on the author’s personal website, in an institutional repository, or on not-for-profit subject-based preprint servers. However, the deposited version should not be updated to look like the final version of record. Posting on a preprint server before submission is not considered duplicate publication and will not jeopardize consideration.

Accepted manuscript (AM)

The author can post the accepted manuscript on their personal website at any point after publication. After publication, it should be linked to the published version with the following text:

Final version of record

As an open access journal under CC BY-NC 4.0, authors may freely share the final published PDF, with proper attribution and for non-commercial purposes, on personal websites, in institutional repositories and on scholarly networks. The following statement should appear:

2. Peer review process

The evaluation of articles submitted to the journal involves two sequential steps: desk review and peer review.

In the desk review, editors analyze the articles received (without any identification of authors) to assess their relevance to the journal’s scope, the suitability of the methodological procedures, and compliance with the Author Guidelines and the template. For technological articles and experience reports, they also check the clarity of the problem, the concrete presentation of the solution or intervention, and the CIMO protocol structure. When the submitted work does not comply with the journal’s policies, the authors are informed of the decision within thirty days from the date of submission.

Articles that pass the desk review are sent to two peer reviewers who are professors and researchers associated with stricto sensu graduate programs at national or international institutions and, for technological articles and experience reports, professionals with recognized expertise in the topic. Reviewers are selected based on expertise in the relevant technical field, considering the need for appropriate, inclusive and diverse representation.

Possible outcomes

After evaluation, the Editor will make one of the following decisions:

• Accepted — the manuscript is accepted for publication as submitted;
• Minor revisions — the manuscript requires minor corrections before acceptance;
• Major revisions — the manuscript requires substantial corrections and will be re-evaluated;
• Rejected — the manuscript does not meet the journal’s requirements.

After the requested adjustments are made and verified by reviewers and editors, the articles are submitted to copyediting, proofreading and layout in compliance with the editorial standards adopted by the journal.

Editorial decision-making process

A decision on a manuscript recommendation by an Editor is normally arrived at through internal consultations with the Editorial Team concerned. The recommendation is forwarded to the Editor-in-Chief for a final decision. After technical editing at the Editor-in-Chief’s desk, the corresponding author is given an opportunity to incorporate necessary improvements. The Editor-in-Chief makes the technical consultations with the Editor or a technical expert that are deemed fit before arriving at the final decision on acceptance.

When evaluating a manuscript for publication, in addition to standard criteria of rigor, adequate weight is given to other attributes such as the extent and quality of presentation, the reliability and authenticity of data, and contribution to new knowledge — theoretical for technical articles, and applied for technological articles and experience reports.

3. Ethics and responsibilities of peer reviewers

Potential reviewers should provide accurate personal and professional information regarding their expertise, including verifiable contact information. On receiving an invitation for review, a response (whether available or not) should be sent within a reasonable time frame. One should accept to undertake the review only if qualified to judge the particular manuscript and able to return a review within the proposed or mutually agreed time frame.

Impersonation of another individual during the review process is considered serious misconduct (COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers).

All manuscripts received for review are treated as confidential documents. Reviewers must not share the review or information about the manuscript with anyone, or directly contact the author(s). Reviews should be conducted objectively, with views expressed with supporting arguments and references as necessary.

A reviewer should bring potential ethical issues in a manuscript to the attention of the Editorial Board, including any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published document(s) of which the reviewer has personal knowledge.

Reviewers who have accepted reviewing assignments are normally expected to submit their review comments within three weeks of receipt of the manuscript, or within a mutually agreed time frame.

Reviewers should declare to the Editorial Board any potential competing interests and should decline to review a manuscript with which they believe they have competing interests resulting from competitive, collaborative or other relationships with any of the authors, companies or institutions connected to the manuscript.

Unpublished content disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used by a reviewer in any form without the written consent of the author(s). Information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Personal criticism of the author(s) is inappropriate and must be avoided. In articles describing solutions or data of organizations, reviewers must not use strategic or commercial information obtained during the review.

AI tools cannot serve as reviewers or as decision-issuing editors. Any use of AI tools in peer review (e.g., for data assessment or language editing) must be clearly disclosed to authors in the review form (reviewers) or the decision letter (editors).

4. Ethics and responsibilities of editors and editorial board members

RMR is maintained by CEBRAEV in partnership with Editora Alumni IN. Editorial decisions are made independently by the editorial team, without interference from the maintaining body, the partner or any commercial interest.

All members of the editorial board should declare potential conflicts of interest, including concurrent editorships and editorial board memberships, when joining the editorial team (COPE Guidelines: Editorial board participation).

An Editor shall ensure that the peer review process is unbiased, timely and of high technical quality, and shall maintain high technical standards for manuscripts recommended for publication. All Editors shall ensure the integrity of the double-blind review policy by not revealing the identity of authors to reviewers and vice versa. An Editor also protects the confidentiality of all material submitted to the journal and all external communications.

An Editor shall give due consideration to all disclosures of potential conflicts of interest and suggestions for self-citation made by reviewers.

Submissions by editors or editorial board members

To preserve editorial independence and credibility, manuscripts authored by members of the editorial team are subject to special procedures. As a general rule, manuscripts authored by editors should be avoided. In exceptional and duly justified cases:

• the manuscript will be handled by an independent guest editor with no conflict of interest;
• the entire editorial process will follow a strict double-blind peer review procedure;
• the editorial independence of reviewers and authors will be preserved;
• a transparency note will be included in the published issue or editorial explaining the exceptional handling of the manuscript.

5. Plagiarism policy

The author(s) should ensure that they have reported original work with their own data and statements. If the work, data and words of others have been used, they must be appropriately cited or referenced. A statement that is an observation, derivation or argument previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation. Plagiarism in all its forms constitutes unethical behavior and is unacceptable.

A manuscript submitted to the journal goes through a plagiarism check by the Editorial Board using plagiarism detection software — Crossref Similarity Check, powered by iThenticate. If the manuscript is found to have similarity, the author is advised to revise it suitably. A manuscript with a high level of similarity is rejected.

When plagiarism is detected, the process outlined in the relevant COPE guidelines/flowcharts is followed (COPE — Plagiarism in a submitted manuscript & COPE — Redundant (duplicate) publication).

In the event of substantial plagiarism, the journal may inform the head of the organization to which the author(s) is affiliated for appropriate measures, and may also disable the account of the author(s) concerned for a period of one to three years.

6. Conflicts of interest policy

The journal adopts strict procedures to identify, prevent and manage conflicts of interest at all stages of the editorial and publication process, in accordance with international best practices and Brazilian standards of scientific integrity.

Disclosure by authors

All authors and co-authors must disclose any potential conflict of interest at the time of manuscript submission. Conflicts may include, but are not limited to: employment or institutional affiliation that may influence the research; consulting fees, honoraria or financial support; research funding contracts or sponsorships (including from retail companies and chains); patent applications, licenses or intellectual property interests; advisory board participation or governance roles; and institutional or organizational policies that may influence the results or interpretation of the study.

Authors must explicitly state either “The authors declare no conflict of interest” or provide a clear description of any existing or potential conflict. This declaration will be published in the final version of the article.

Editorial assignment and management of conflicts

Manuscripts are assigned to editors and reviewers with the objective of minimizing potential conflicts. The journal avoids assigning manuscripts to editors or reviewers who are: current institutional colleagues; recent institutional or professional collaborators; recent co-authors; former or current doctoral advisees or advisors; or who have personal, financial or institutional relationships that may compromise impartiality.

If, after assignment, an editor or reviewer identifies a potential conflict not previously declared, they must immediately inform the Editor-in-Chief and recuse themselves. Where all available editors present some level of conflict, the manuscript will be assigned to the editor with the least potential conflict, ensuring transparency and editorial independence.

Commitment to transparency

The journal is committed to maintaining transparency, impartiality and ethical rigor. All declared conflicts of interest are handled confidentially and managed in accordance with COPE guidelines and Brazilian best practices in scholarly publishing.

7. Copyright and licensing

The journal adopts an open access publishing model and respects the intellectual property rights of authors. Upon acceptance, authors grant the journal the right of first publication, and the published work is simultaneously licensed under CC BY-NC 4.0.

The license allows any user to share (copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format) and adapt (remix, transform and build upon the material), for non-commercial purposes, provided that appropriate credit is given to the original author(s) and the source is properly cited. Commercial uses require prior authorization from the authors.

Prior to publication, all authors must sign a Term of Authorization for Publication, sent electronically by the editorial office, confirming the originality of the work, the grant of the right of first publication and agreement with the adopted licensing terms.

Open access policy

The journal provides immediate and unrestricted open access to all published content, based on the principle that making scientific research freely available contributes to the global exchange of knowledge. There is no embargo period. Submission and acceptance dates are disclosed in each published article.

Repository and self-archiving policy

Authors are permitted and encouraged to disseminate their work widely. The journal allows the deposit of all versions of manuscripts in institutional, thematic or personal repositories, including: preprint (submitted version), author accepted manuscript (postprint) and published version of record (final published article). No embargo period is applied to self-archiving.

The journal grants third parties the right to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, link to and use the full texts of articles, provided that proper attribution is given in accordance with the CC BY-NC 4.0 license.

8. Article processing charges (APC)

The journal is fully committed to removing financial barriers to scholarly publication. Authors are never required to pay for submission, peer review, copyediting, typesetting, digital archiving or online hosting. All costs associated with the operation of the journal are borne by CEBRAEV, in partnership with Editora Alumni IN.

This policy applies equally to all authors, regardless of geographic location, institutional affiliation or funding status. There are no hidden charges, surcharges for expedited review, or premium publication services.

The journal does not offer fee waivers or discounts because no fees exist. Authors should be cautious of any communication requesting payment on behalf of the journal; any such request is fraudulent and should be reported to the Editorial Office immediately.

9. Data availability and sharing

The journal encourages authors to make research data publicly available whenever possible, in accordance with the FAIR principles (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, Reusable). Authors should include a Data Availability Statement indicating where data can be accessed or explaining any restrictions.

When data cannot be shared due to ethical, legal or commercial restrictions — such as customer data, confidential company information or data protected by the LGPD — authors must explain these limitations. Upon reasonable request and where permissible, authors should provide data to editors or reviewers for verification purposes.

Authors are encouraged to archive additional data and research information supporting the results in an appropriate public repository within the legal and ethical framework, and to include a data availability statement with a link to the repository.

Open science badges

This journal supports the initiative forwarded by the Center for Open Science (COS) and gives authors the opportunity to apply for one or more of the three badges that identify open science practices:

• Open Data badge — awarded when digitally shareable data necessary to reproduce the reported results are publicly available;
• Open Materials badge — earned by making publicly available the components of the research methodology needed to reproduce the reported procedure and analysis;
• Preregistered badge — earned for having a preregistered design and analysis plan.

To apply, authors must complete the open practices disclosure form and return it to the editorial team, which will determine whether the submission meets the criteria. An author may apply for one or all three badges.

10. Preprint policy

A “preprint” is an early version of a manuscript created prior to the version accepted for publication. Deposition of a preprint on any recognized platform shall not be viewed as prior publication (COPE Discussion Document: Preprints).

Authors are required to include details of a preprint posting, including DOI or other persistent identifier, when submitting their manuscript. Authors should not enhance the preprint in any way that makes it look more like, or substitute for, the final version.

Upon acceptance, the corresponding author must agree to the terms of the relevant publishing agreement. Authors are required to update the preprint to acknowledge acceptance:

After publication of the final version, the preprint shall be immediately linked to the Version of Record, and the following text must be added:

11. Archiving and digital preservation

To ensure the permanence, integrity and long-term accessibility of all published content, the journal adopts a comprehensive digital preservation and archiving policy aligned with international standards of scholarly communication.

Indexing and discoverability

The journal is published on the OJS (Open Journal Systems) platform of the Alumni Journals portal (alumnijournals.org/rmr), which provides standardized metadata and the OAI-PMH protocol, enabling harvesting by indexers, databases and repositories. The list of databases and indexers in which the journal appears is kept up to date on the journal’s institutional page. Each article receives a DOI, ensuring persistent citation and tracking.

Cloud-based backup and redundancy

The journal maintains cloud-based backup systems operated by the technology partner responsible for hosting the OJS platform, with periodic automated backups in secure environments, ensuring redundancy, data integrity and rapid restoration capability.

Distributed preservation strategy

The journal adopts distributed digital preservation strategies based on internationally recognized archiving principles. These include secure server hosting, mirrored backups and repository-ready metadata structures compatible with indexing systems and digital libraries. The policy guarantees that all published articles, issues and supplementary materials remain available in perpetuity.

12. Retraction and correction policy

The journal follows the COPE Retraction Guidelines to maintain the integrity of the scholarly record. The following editorial actions may be taken when issues are identified in published articles:

Erratum

An erratum is published when errors introduced during the editorial or production process (e.g., in figures, tables or layout) have caused incorrect understanding of the article and remained unnoticed during editing.

Corrigendum

A corrigendum is published when the authors realize that errors in the published article could affect the validity or accuracy of the scientific content.

Expression of concern

An expression of concern may be issued when there is inconclusive evidence of research or publication misconduct, when an investigation into alleged misconduct is underway but a judgment will not be available for a considerable time, or when there are concerns that the findings may be unreliable but the author’s institution will not investigate the case.

Retraction

Retractions are issued if there is clear evidence that the reported findings are scientifically unreliable (due to major error or misconduct, including fabrication, falsification or plagiarism beyond an acceptable limit), if the findings have previously been published elsewhere without proper referencing or permission, if the article constitutes plagiarism, or if the research reports unethical practices. Any decision on retraction shall be taken by the Editorial Board.

Retracted articles are not removed from the published record. A retraction notice, clearly linked to the retracted article, will be published with an explanation of the reason(s) for retraction. The retracted article will be clearly marked as retracted in all online versions.

Retraction notices will be freely available to all readers, indexed and linked to the original article to ensure that the scholarly record is corrected and transparent.

13. Withdrawal policy

The Editorial Board discourages the withdrawal of manuscripts submitted to the journal as it wastes the productive time and efficiency of editors, reviewers and others associated with processing the manuscript. Authors should carefully assess the suitability of the journal’s requirements and policies before submitting.

A formal written request must be submitted to the Editor-in-Chief by the corresponding author, clearly stating the reasons for the withdrawal. The request must be signed by all authors listed in the manuscript.

If a withdrawal request is received at any time after completion of the review process and/or communication of acceptance, the Editorial Board may bar the author(s) from submitting a new manuscript for a maximum period of three years. The withdrawn article is archived in the journal’s database and is not further acted upon.

14. Advertising policy

Published editorial content of the journal is not compromised by commercial or financial interests, or by any arrangements with advertising clients or sponsors. CEBRAEV, Editora Alumni IN and the Editorial Board do not accept any consideration and do not publish advertising, commercial content or sponsored articles. Authors of scientific articles cannot link advertisements using keywords.

Editorial decisions are made independently of any commercial considerations. No advertising revenue influences the selection, peer review or publication of articles. Given the journal’s subject, retail, the editorial team also ensures that commercial relationships of authors, reviewers or editors with companies in the sector do not interfere with decisions.

15. Complaints and appeals

The journal adopts transparent procedures for receiving, evaluating and resolving complaints and appeals related to editorial processes, publication ethics and scientific integrity. All cases are treated with seriousness, impartiality and confidentiality.

Scope of complaints

The Editorial Board considers complaints related to, but not limited to: authorship disputes; plagiarism or self-plagiarism; duplicate or simultaneous submissions/publications; misappropriation or misuse of research data; errors, inconsistencies or suspected research fraud; violations of ethical standards; undisclosed conflicts of interest; reviewer bias or unethical interference; excessive delays in editorial processing; and allegations of intellectual property infringement.

Submission of complaints and appeals

Complaints and appeals must be formally submitted to the editorial office or directly to the Editor-in-Chief, preferably in writing via the journal’s official email. The submission must include: clear identification of the complainant; a detailed description of the issue; and supporting documentation or evidence, when available. Anonymous or unsubstantiated complaints may not be considered.

Appeals against editorial decisions

Authors may submit an appeal against an editorial decision, including manuscript rejection. The Editor-in-Chief and/or the handling Editor will evaluate the authors’ justification, the reviewer reports and compliance with journal policies. Based on this evaluation, the journal may: maintain the original decision; reconsider the manuscript; request an additional independent review; or reject the appeal. Decisions resulting from the appeal process are final.

Investigation of ethical complaints

Complaints involving publication ethics, intellectual property infringement, research misconduct or unlawful content will be investigated by the Editor-in-Chief in consultation with the Editorial Board. The investigation may include: requesting clarification from the parties involved; consulting independent reviewers or experts; temporarily suspending editorial processing; and issuing corrections, expressions of concern or retractions when appropriate.

All allegations of misconduct are evaluated in accordance with COPE guidelines and applicable Brazilian regulations on copyright and academic integrity.

Legal jurisdiction

All legal matters related to the journal’s publications and editorial processes are governed by Brazilian law. Any disputes that cannot be resolved administratively will be subject to the jurisdiction of the competent courts in Brazil.

16. Publication schedule and editorial workflow

Continuous publication

Articles are published individually as soon as they complete peer review, editorial processing and production, without waiting for issue closure. This model ensures that accepted articles are made available to the scholarly community as soon as possible, significantly reducing the time between acceptance and publication. Each article receives a Digital Object Identifier (DOI) upon publication, making it immediately citable and trackable.

Early Access

To disseminate works accepted for publication earlier than the standard production and issue release cycles, the journal has implemented an “Early Access” option. Articles accepted for publication but scheduled for release in a forthcoming issue are displayed on a specific Early Access page so that they can be read and cited before their scheduled release in an issue. Papers published as Early Access are final, full-text, peer-reviewed, copyedited articles made available to the audience as soon as they are complete, published online before being assigned to a volume and issue of the journal.

Editorial workflow

The editorial process of Retail Management Review follows these stages:

Estimated editorial timelines

17. Journal revenue sources

In accordance with the Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing, the journal discloses its revenue sources and business model.

Retail Management Review operates as a Diamond Open Access journal. All operational costs — including hosting, digital preservation, editorial management, copyediting, layout and DOI registration — are funded by CEBRAEV, in partnership with Editora Alumni IN. The journal does not charge APCs, submission fees or any other fees to authors, readers or institutions.

The journal does not accept advertising, sponsorships or any form of commercial revenue that could influence editorial decisions or the integrity of published content. Revenue sources of the maintaining body and the partner may include institutional support, voluntary partnerships and other publishing activities of Editora Alumni IN that are entirely separate from editorial decision-making.

This financial model ensures that editorial independence is fully preserved and that no financial considerations influence the acceptance, rejection or publication of scholarly work.