Suspected redundant publication in a received manuscript

• The reviewer informs the editor about the redundant publication with the necessary arguments.
• Thank the reviewer and inform him that the information provided by the editorial committee is evaluated against editorial policies, as well as obtain all documentary evidence, if they are not yet available.
• Check the degree of overlap or redundancy (Three alternatives: 1, 2 and 3).

1. Significant overlap or redundancy (e.g., based on the same data, with identical or very similar results, and/or indications that the authors attempted to hide the redundancy, e.g., by changing the title or order of authorsor not citing previously published articles).

Contact the author responsible for the article in writing, it being advisable to attach the declaration of authorship (or cover letter) where it was established that the submitted work had not been published elsewhere, and the documentary evidence of duplication (Two alternatives: a and b).

a) The author responds (Two alternatives: x and y)

x) Unsatisfactory explanation or admission of guilt.

Write to the author (all authors, if possible) rejecting the article, explaining the position of the magazine and the expected behavior in the future.

Consider informing the author's superiors or the person responsible for research standards.

y) Satisfactory explanation (unintentional error, unclear journal instructions, or young researcher)

Write to the author (all authors, if possible) rejecting the article, explaining the journal's position and expected future behavior.

b) Unanswered

Try to contact all other authors (check the metadata on the OJS platform to find their emails and write again). If they respond, the alternative is resumed with a response, if they do not respond then:

Contact the center where the author works and request that your concern be conveyed to the author's superiors or the person responsible for research standards and try to obtain acknowledgment of receipt of the letter. If there is a response, write to the author (to all authors, if possible) rejecting the article, explaining the journal's position and the expected behavior in the future. If there is no response, continue contacting the center every 3-6 months.

Finally, inform the author(s) of the action taken and inform the reviewer of the result or action.

2. Minor overlap with some elements of redundancy or justified reanalysis (e.g., subgrouping, extended follow-up, or discussion aimed at a different audience)

Contact the author in neutral terms, expressing disappointment, explaining the magazine's position. Explain that secondary articles must always cite the original. Request the missing reference to the original, or remove the overlapping material. Continue with the review. Inform the reviewer of the result or action taken.

Inform the reviewer of the result or action taken.

3. No overlap

Discuss with the reviewer. Proceed with review.