SVEN OVE HANSSON, CIÊNCIA E PSEUDOCIÊNCIA; TRADUÇÃO DE CRISTIANE XEREZ BARROSO
Palavras-chave:
Filosofia
Resumo
...
Referências
AGASSI, Joseph. Popper’s demarcation of science refuted. Methodology and Science, 24, p. 1-
7, 1991.
BAIGRIE, Brian S. Siegel on the Rationality of Science. Philosophy of Science, 55, p. 435-441,
1988.
BARTLEY III, William W. Theories of demarcation between science and metaphysics, p. 40-
64, 1968. In: Imre Lakatos & Alan Musgrave (eds.). Problems in the Philosophy of Science.
Proceedings of the International Colloquium in the Philosophy of Science, London 1965
(Volume 3), Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing Company.
BLANCKE, Stefaan; BOUDRY, Maarten & PIGLIUCCI, Massimo. Why do irrational beliefs
mimic science? The cultural evolution of pseudoscience. Theoria, 83, 1, p. 78-97, 2017.
BOUDRY, Maarten; BLANCKE, Stefaan & BRAECKMAN, Johan. How not to attack
intelligent design creationism: Philosophical misconceptions about methodological naturalism.
Foundations of Science, 153, p. 227-244, 2010.
BOYKOFF, Maxwell T. Lost in translation? United States television news coverage of
anthropogenic climate change, 1995-2004. Climatic Change, 86, p. 1-11, 2008.
BOYKOFF, Maxwell T. & BOYKOFF, Jules M. Balance as bias: global warming and the U.S.
prestige press. Global Environmental Change, 14, p. 125-136, 2004.
BUNGE, Mario. Demarcating Science from Pseudoscience. Fundamenta Scientiae, 3, p. 369-
388, 1982.
BUNGE, Mario. Diagnosing pseudoscience. In: Mario Bunge. Philosophy in Crisis. The Need
for Reconstruction, Amherst, N.Y.: Prometheus Books, p. 161-189, 2001.
BURNINGHAM, K. & COOPER, Geoff. Being constructive: Social constructionism and the
environment. Sociology, 33, 2, p. 297-316, 1999. BUTTEL, Frederick H. & TAYLOR, Peter J. Environmental sociology and global
environmental change: A critical assessment. Society and Natural Resources, 5, 3, p. 211-230,
1992.
CARLSON, Shawn. A Double Blind Test of Astrology. Nature, 318, p. 419-425, 1985.
CIOFFI, Frank. Psychoanalysis, pseudoscience and testability, p 13-44, 1985. In: Gregory
Currie & Alan Musgrave (eds.). Popper and the Human Sciences. Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff
Publishers.
COOK, John; ORESKES, Naomi; DORAN, Peter T.; ANDEREGG, William R. L.;
VERHEGGEN, Bart; MAIBACH, Ed W.; CARLTON, J. Stuart et al. Consensus on consensus:
A synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused global warming. Environmental Research
Letters, 11, 048002, 2016.
CULVER, Roger & PHILIP, Ianna. Astrology: True or False. Buffalo: Prometheus Books, 1988.
DERKSEN, Anthony A. The seven sins of pseudoscience. Journal for General Philosophy of
Science, 24, p. 17-42, 1993.
DERKSEN, Anthony A. The seven strategies of the sophisticated pseudoscience: a look into
Freud’s rhetorical tool box. Journal for General Philosophy of Science, 32, p. 329-350, 2001.
DOLBY, R.G.A. Science and pseudoscience: the case of creationism. Zygon, 22, p. 195-212,
1987.
DUNLAP, Riley E. & JACQUES, Peter J. Climate change denial books and conservative think
tanks: exploring the connection. American Behavioral Scientist, 57, 6, p. 699-731, 2013.
DUPRÉ, John. The Disorder of Things: Metaphysical Foundations of the Disunity of Science.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1993.
DUTCH, Steven I. Notes on the nature of fringe science. Journal of Geological Education, 30,
p. 6-13, 1982.
FELEPPA, Robert. Kuhn, Popper, and the Normative Problem of Demarcation, pp. 140-155,
1990. In: Patrick Grim (ed.). Philosophy of Science and the Occult, 2nd edition, Albany: State
University of New York Press.
FERNANDEZ-BEANATO, Damian. Cicero’s demarcation of science: A report of shared
criteria. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science (Part A), 83, p. 97-102, 2020.
FRANKFURT, Harry G. On Bullshit. Princeton: Princeton University Press; ver também o
ensaio homônimo em Raritan Quarterly Review, 6, 2, p. 81-100, 2005. FULLER, Steve. The demarcation of science: a problem whose demise has been greatly
exaggerated. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly, 66, p. 329-341, 1985.
GARDNER, Martin. Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science. Dover, 1957; versão expandida
de seu livro In the Name of Science, 1952.
GLEBERZON, William. Academic freedom and Holocaust denial literature: Dealing with
infamy. Interchange, 14, 4, p. 62-69, 1983.
GLYMOUR, Clark & STALKER, Douglas. Winning through Pseudoscience, p. 92-103, 1990.
In: Patrick Grim (ed.). Philosophy of Science and the Occult. 2nd edition. Albany: State
University of New York Press.
GROVE, J.W. Rationality at Risk: Science against Pseudoscience. Minerva, 23, p. 216-240,
1985.
GRUENBERGER, Fred J. A measure for crackpots. Science, 145, p. 1413-1415, 1964.
GULDENTOPS, Guy. Nicolaus Ellenbog’s ‘Apologia for the Astrologers’: A Benedictine’s
View on Astral Determinism. Bulletin de Philosophie Médiévale, 62, p. 251-334, 2020.
HANSSON, Sven Ove. Defining Pseudoscience. Philosophia Naturalis, 33, p. 169-176, 1996.
HANSSON, Sven Ove. Falsificationism Falsified. Foundations of Science, 11, p. 275-286,
2006.
HANSSON, Sven Ove. Defining pseudoscience and science, p. 61-77, 2013. In: Massimo
Pigliucci & Maarten Boudry (eds.). Philosophy of Pseudoscience. Reconsidering the
demarcation problem. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
HANSSON, Sven Ove. Science denial as a form of pseudoscience. Studies in History and
Philosophy of Science, 63, p. 39-47, 2017.
HANSSON, Sven Ove. How connected are the major forms of irrationality? An analysis of
pseudoscience, science denial, fact resistance and alternative facts. Mètode Science Study
Journal, 8, p. 125-131, 2018.
HANSSON, Sven Ove. Social constructivism and climate science denial. European Journal for
Philosophy of Science, 10, 37, 2020. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13194-020-00305-w
HOYNINENGEN-HUENE, Paul. Systematicity. The nature of science. Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 2013.
IRZIK, Gürol & NOLA, Robert. A family resemblance approach to the nature of science for
science education. Science and Education, 20, 7, p. 591-607, 2011.
JOLLEY, Daniel & DOUGLAS, Karen M. The effects of anti-vaccine conspiracy theories on
vaccination intentions. PloS One, 9, 2, e89177, 2014. KEELEY, Brian L. Of Conspiracy Theories. The Journal of Philosophy, 96, 3, p. 109-126,
1999.
KITCHER, Philip. Abusing Science. The Case Against Creationism. Cambridge, MA: MIT
Press, 1982.
KRYSTAL, Arthur. At Large and at Small: What Do You Know? American Scholar, 68, 2, p. 7-
13, 1999.
KUHN, Thomas S. Logic of Discovery or Psychology of Research?, p. 798-819, 1974. In: P.A.
Schilpp. The Philosophy of Karl Popper (The Library of Living Philosophers, Volume 14, Book
2). La Salle: Open Court.
LAKATOS, Imre. Falsification and the Methodology of Research program, p 91-197, 1970. In:
Imre Lakatos & Alan Musgrave (eds.). Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
LAKATOS, Imre. Popper on Demarcation and Induction, p. 241-273, 1974a. In: P. A. Schilpp.
The Philosophy of Karl Popper (The Library of Living Philosophers, Volume 14, Book 1). La
Salle: Open Court.
LAKATOS, Imre. Science and pseudoscience. Conceptus, 8, p. 5-9, 1974b.
LAKATOS, Imre. Science and pseudoscience, p. 114-121, 1981. In: S. Brown et al. (eds.).
Conceptions of Inquiry: A Reader, London: Methuen.
LANGMUIR, Irving. Pathological Science, Physics Today, 42, 10, p. 36-48, 1989 [1953].
LAUDAN, Larry. The demise of the demarcation problem, 1983, p. 111-127. In: R.S. Cohan &
L. Laudan (eds.). Physics, Philosophy, and Psychoanalysis. Dordrecht: Reidel.
LEWANDOWSKY, Stephan; PILDITCH, Toby D.; MADSEN, Jens K.; ORESKES, Naomi &
RISBEY, James S. Influence and seepage: An evidence-resistant minority can affect public
opinion and scientific belief formation. Cognition, 188, p. 124-139, 2019.
LIEBENBERG, Louis. The Origin of Science. The evolutionary roots of scientific reasoning and
its implications for citizen science. Cape Town: CyberTracker, 2013.
LUGG, Andrew. Bunkum, Flim-Flam and Quackery: Pseudoscience as a Philosophical
Problem. Dialectica, 41, p. 221-230, 1987.
LUGG, Andrew. Pseudoscience as nonsense. Methodology and Science, 25, p. 91-101, 1992.
MAHNER, Martin. Demarcating Science from Non-Science, p 515-575, 2007. In: Theo Kuipers
(ed.). Handbook of the Philosophy of Science: General Philosophy of Science – Focal Issues. Amsterdam: Elsevier. MAHNER, Martin. Science and pseudoscience. How to demarcate after the (alleged) demise of
the demarcation problem, p. 29-43, 2013. In: Massimo Pigliucci & Maarten Boudry (eds.).
Philosophy of Pseudoscience. Reconsidering the demarcation problem. Chicago: Chicago
University Press.
MAYO, Deborah G. Ducks, rabbits and normal science: Recasting the Kuhn’s-eye view of
Popper’s demarcation of science. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 47, p. 271-290,
1996.
MERTON, Robert K. Science and Technology in a Democratic Order. Journal of Legal and
Political Sociology, 1, p. 115-126, 1942; reimpresso como The Normative Structure of Science.
In: Robert K. Merton. The Sociology of Science. Theoretical and Empirical Investigations.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp. 267–278, 1973.
MOBERGER, Victor. Bullshit, Pseudoscience and Pseudophilosophy. Theoria, 86, 5, p. 595-
611, 2020.
MORRIS, Robert L. Parapsychology and the Demarcation Problem. Inquiry, 30, p. 241-251,
1987.
ORESKES, Naomi. Systematicity is necessary but not sufficient: on the problem of facsimile
science. Synthese, 196, 3, p. 881-905, 2019.
ORESKES, Naomi & CONWAY, Erik M. Merchants of doubt: how a handful of scientists
obscured the truth on issues from tobacco smoke to global warming. New York: Bloomsbury
Press, 2010.
PENNOCK, Robert T. The postmodern sin of intelligent design creationism. Science and
Education, 19, 6–8, p. 757-778, 2010.
PENNOCK, Robert T. Can’t philosophers tell the difference between science and religion?:
Demarcation revisited. Synthese, 178, 2, p. 177-206, 2011.
Pigliucci, Massimo. The demarcation problem. A (belated) response to Laudan, p. 9-28, 2013.
In: PIGLIUCCI, Massimo & BOUDRY, Maarten (eds.). Philosophy of Pseudoscience.
Reconsidering the demarcation problem. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
PIGLIUCCI, Massimo & BOUDRY, Maarten (eds.). Philosophy of Pseudoscience.
Reconsidering the demarcation problem. Chicago: Chicago University Press, 2013.
POPPER, Karl. Conjectures and refutations. The growth of scientific knowledge. New York:
Basic Books, 1962.
POPPER, Karl. Reply to my critics. In: P.A. Schilpp. The Philosophy of Karl Popper (The
Library of Living Philosophers, Volume 14, Book 2), La Salle: Open Court, p. 961-1197, 1974.
POPPER, Karl. Unended Quest. London: Fontana, 1976.
7, 1991.
BAIGRIE, Brian S. Siegel on the Rationality of Science. Philosophy of Science, 55, p. 435-441,
1988.
BARTLEY III, William W. Theories of demarcation between science and metaphysics, p. 40-
64, 1968. In: Imre Lakatos & Alan Musgrave (eds.). Problems in the Philosophy of Science.
Proceedings of the International Colloquium in the Philosophy of Science, London 1965
(Volume 3), Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing Company.
BLANCKE, Stefaan; BOUDRY, Maarten & PIGLIUCCI, Massimo. Why do irrational beliefs
mimic science? The cultural evolution of pseudoscience. Theoria, 83, 1, p. 78-97, 2017.
BOUDRY, Maarten; BLANCKE, Stefaan & BRAECKMAN, Johan. How not to attack
intelligent design creationism: Philosophical misconceptions about methodological naturalism.
Foundations of Science, 153, p. 227-244, 2010.
BOYKOFF, Maxwell T. Lost in translation? United States television news coverage of
anthropogenic climate change, 1995-2004. Climatic Change, 86, p. 1-11, 2008.
BOYKOFF, Maxwell T. & BOYKOFF, Jules M. Balance as bias: global warming and the U.S.
prestige press. Global Environmental Change, 14, p. 125-136, 2004.
BUNGE, Mario. Demarcating Science from Pseudoscience. Fundamenta Scientiae, 3, p. 369-
388, 1982.
BUNGE, Mario. Diagnosing pseudoscience. In: Mario Bunge. Philosophy in Crisis. The Need
for Reconstruction, Amherst, N.Y.: Prometheus Books, p. 161-189, 2001.
BURNINGHAM, K. & COOPER, Geoff. Being constructive: Social constructionism and the
environment. Sociology, 33, 2, p. 297-316, 1999. BUTTEL, Frederick H. & TAYLOR, Peter J. Environmental sociology and global
environmental change: A critical assessment. Society and Natural Resources, 5, 3, p. 211-230,
1992.
CARLSON, Shawn. A Double Blind Test of Astrology. Nature, 318, p. 419-425, 1985.
CIOFFI, Frank. Psychoanalysis, pseudoscience and testability, p 13-44, 1985. In: Gregory
Currie & Alan Musgrave (eds.). Popper and the Human Sciences. Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff
Publishers.
COOK, John; ORESKES, Naomi; DORAN, Peter T.; ANDEREGG, William R. L.;
VERHEGGEN, Bart; MAIBACH, Ed W.; CARLTON, J. Stuart et al. Consensus on consensus:
A synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused global warming. Environmental Research
Letters, 11, 048002, 2016.
CULVER, Roger & PHILIP, Ianna. Astrology: True or False. Buffalo: Prometheus Books, 1988.
DERKSEN, Anthony A. The seven sins of pseudoscience. Journal for General Philosophy of
Science, 24, p. 17-42, 1993.
DERKSEN, Anthony A. The seven strategies of the sophisticated pseudoscience: a look into
Freud’s rhetorical tool box. Journal for General Philosophy of Science, 32, p. 329-350, 2001.
DOLBY, R.G.A. Science and pseudoscience: the case of creationism. Zygon, 22, p. 195-212,
1987.
DUNLAP, Riley E. & JACQUES, Peter J. Climate change denial books and conservative think
tanks: exploring the connection. American Behavioral Scientist, 57, 6, p. 699-731, 2013.
DUPRÉ, John. The Disorder of Things: Metaphysical Foundations of the Disunity of Science.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1993.
DUTCH, Steven I. Notes on the nature of fringe science. Journal of Geological Education, 30,
p. 6-13, 1982.
FELEPPA, Robert. Kuhn, Popper, and the Normative Problem of Demarcation, pp. 140-155,
1990. In: Patrick Grim (ed.). Philosophy of Science and the Occult, 2nd edition, Albany: State
University of New York Press.
FERNANDEZ-BEANATO, Damian. Cicero’s demarcation of science: A report of shared
criteria. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science (Part A), 83, p. 97-102, 2020.
FRANKFURT, Harry G. On Bullshit. Princeton: Princeton University Press; ver também o
ensaio homônimo em Raritan Quarterly Review, 6, 2, p. 81-100, 2005. FULLER, Steve. The demarcation of science: a problem whose demise has been greatly
exaggerated. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly, 66, p. 329-341, 1985.
GARDNER, Martin. Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science. Dover, 1957; versão expandida
de seu livro In the Name of Science, 1952.
GLEBERZON, William. Academic freedom and Holocaust denial literature: Dealing with
infamy. Interchange, 14, 4, p. 62-69, 1983.
GLYMOUR, Clark & STALKER, Douglas. Winning through Pseudoscience, p. 92-103, 1990.
In: Patrick Grim (ed.). Philosophy of Science and the Occult. 2nd edition. Albany: State
University of New York Press.
GROVE, J.W. Rationality at Risk: Science against Pseudoscience. Minerva, 23, p. 216-240,
1985.
GRUENBERGER, Fred J. A measure for crackpots. Science, 145, p. 1413-1415, 1964.
GULDENTOPS, Guy. Nicolaus Ellenbog’s ‘Apologia for the Astrologers’: A Benedictine’s
View on Astral Determinism. Bulletin de Philosophie Médiévale, 62, p. 251-334, 2020.
HANSSON, Sven Ove. Defining Pseudoscience. Philosophia Naturalis, 33, p. 169-176, 1996.
HANSSON, Sven Ove. Falsificationism Falsified. Foundations of Science, 11, p. 275-286,
2006.
HANSSON, Sven Ove. Defining pseudoscience and science, p. 61-77, 2013. In: Massimo
Pigliucci & Maarten Boudry (eds.). Philosophy of Pseudoscience. Reconsidering the
demarcation problem. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
HANSSON, Sven Ove. Science denial as a form of pseudoscience. Studies in History and
Philosophy of Science, 63, p. 39-47, 2017.
HANSSON, Sven Ove. How connected are the major forms of irrationality? An analysis of
pseudoscience, science denial, fact resistance and alternative facts. Mètode Science Study
Journal, 8, p. 125-131, 2018.
HANSSON, Sven Ove. Social constructivism and climate science denial. European Journal for
Philosophy of Science, 10, 37, 2020. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13194-020-00305-w
HOYNINENGEN-HUENE, Paul. Systematicity. The nature of science. Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 2013.
IRZIK, Gürol & NOLA, Robert. A family resemblance approach to the nature of science for
science education. Science and Education, 20, 7, p. 591-607, 2011.
JOLLEY, Daniel & DOUGLAS, Karen M. The effects of anti-vaccine conspiracy theories on
vaccination intentions. PloS One, 9, 2, e89177, 2014. KEELEY, Brian L. Of Conspiracy Theories. The Journal of Philosophy, 96, 3, p. 109-126,
1999.
KITCHER, Philip. Abusing Science. The Case Against Creationism. Cambridge, MA: MIT
Press, 1982.
KRYSTAL, Arthur. At Large and at Small: What Do You Know? American Scholar, 68, 2, p. 7-
13, 1999.
KUHN, Thomas S. Logic of Discovery or Psychology of Research?, p. 798-819, 1974. In: P.A.
Schilpp. The Philosophy of Karl Popper (The Library of Living Philosophers, Volume 14, Book
2). La Salle: Open Court.
LAKATOS, Imre. Falsification and the Methodology of Research program, p 91-197, 1970. In:
Imre Lakatos & Alan Musgrave (eds.). Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
LAKATOS, Imre. Popper on Demarcation and Induction, p. 241-273, 1974a. In: P. A. Schilpp.
The Philosophy of Karl Popper (The Library of Living Philosophers, Volume 14, Book 1). La
Salle: Open Court.
LAKATOS, Imre. Science and pseudoscience. Conceptus, 8, p. 5-9, 1974b.
LAKATOS, Imre. Science and pseudoscience, p. 114-121, 1981. In: S. Brown et al. (eds.).
Conceptions of Inquiry: A Reader, London: Methuen.
LANGMUIR, Irving. Pathological Science, Physics Today, 42, 10, p. 36-48, 1989 [1953].
LAUDAN, Larry. The demise of the demarcation problem, 1983, p. 111-127. In: R.S. Cohan &
L. Laudan (eds.). Physics, Philosophy, and Psychoanalysis. Dordrecht: Reidel.
LEWANDOWSKY, Stephan; PILDITCH, Toby D.; MADSEN, Jens K.; ORESKES, Naomi &
RISBEY, James S. Influence and seepage: An evidence-resistant minority can affect public
opinion and scientific belief formation. Cognition, 188, p. 124-139, 2019.
LIEBENBERG, Louis. The Origin of Science. The evolutionary roots of scientific reasoning and
its implications for citizen science. Cape Town: CyberTracker, 2013.
LUGG, Andrew. Bunkum, Flim-Flam and Quackery: Pseudoscience as a Philosophical
Problem. Dialectica, 41, p. 221-230, 1987.
LUGG, Andrew. Pseudoscience as nonsense. Methodology and Science, 25, p. 91-101, 1992.
MAHNER, Martin. Demarcating Science from Non-Science, p 515-575, 2007. In: Theo Kuipers
(ed.). Handbook of the Philosophy of Science: General Philosophy of Science – Focal Issues. Amsterdam: Elsevier. MAHNER, Martin. Science and pseudoscience. How to demarcate after the (alleged) demise of
the demarcation problem, p. 29-43, 2013. In: Massimo Pigliucci & Maarten Boudry (eds.).
Philosophy of Pseudoscience. Reconsidering the demarcation problem. Chicago: Chicago
University Press.
MAYO, Deborah G. Ducks, rabbits and normal science: Recasting the Kuhn’s-eye view of
Popper’s demarcation of science. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 47, p. 271-290,
1996.
MERTON, Robert K. Science and Technology in a Democratic Order. Journal of Legal and
Political Sociology, 1, p. 115-126, 1942; reimpresso como The Normative Structure of Science.
In: Robert K. Merton. The Sociology of Science. Theoretical and Empirical Investigations.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp. 267–278, 1973.
MOBERGER, Victor. Bullshit, Pseudoscience and Pseudophilosophy. Theoria, 86, 5, p. 595-
611, 2020.
MORRIS, Robert L. Parapsychology and the Demarcation Problem. Inquiry, 30, p. 241-251,
1987.
ORESKES, Naomi. Systematicity is necessary but not sufficient: on the problem of facsimile
science. Synthese, 196, 3, p. 881-905, 2019.
ORESKES, Naomi & CONWAY, Erik M. Merchants of doubt: how a handful of scientists
obscured the truth on issues from tobacco smoke to global warming. New York: Bloomsbury
Press, 2010.
PENNOCK, Robert T. The postmodern sin of intelligent design creationism. Science and
Education, 19, 6–8, p. 757-778, 2010.
PENNOCK, Robert T. Can’t philosophers tell the difference between science and religion?:
Demarcation revisited. Synthese, 178, 2, p. 177-206, 2011.
Pigliucci, Massimo. The demarcation problem. A (belated) response to Laudan, p. 9-28, 2013.
In: PIGLIUCCI, Massimo & BOUDRY, Maarten (eds.). Philosophy of Pseudoscience.
Reconsidering the demarcation problem. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
PIGLIUCCI, Massimo & BOUDRY, Maarten (eds.). Philosophy of Pseudoscience.
Reconsidering the demarcation problem. Chicago: Chicago University Press, 2013.
POPPER, Karl. Conjectures and refutations. The growth of scientific knowledge. New York:
Basic Books, 1962.
POPPER, Karl. Reply to my critics. In: P.A. Schilpp. The Philosophy of Karl Popper (The
Library of Living Philosophers, Volume 14, Book 2), La Salle: Open Court, p. 961-1197, 1974.
POPPER, Karl. Unended Quest. London: Fontana, 1976.
Publicado
2023-08-29
Como Citar
Cristiane Xerez Barroso. (2023). SVEN OVE HANSSON, CIÊNCIA E PSEUDOCIÊNCIA; TRADUÇÃO DE CRISTIANE XEREZ BARROSO. ARARIPE — REVISTA DE FILOSOFIA - , 4(1), 257-290. https://doi.org/10.56837/Araripe.2023.v4.n1.1158
Seção
TRADUÇÃO
1 Ao submeter trabalhos à revista ARARIPE, caso este seja aprovado, o autor autoriza sua publicação sem quaisquer ônus para a revista ou para seus editores.
2 Os direitos autorais dos artigos publicados na ARARIPE são do autor, com direitos de primeira publicação reservados para este periódico.
3 Fica resguardado ao autor o direito de republicar seu trabalho, do modo como lhe aprouver (em sites, blogs, repositórios, ou na forma de capítulos de livros), desde que em data posterior fazendo a referência à revista ARARIPE como publicação original.
4 A revista se reserva o direito de efetuar, nos originais, alterações de ordem normativa, ortográfica e gramatical, com vistas a manter o padrão culto da língua, respeitando, porém, o estilo dos autores.
5 Os originais não serão devolvidos aos autores.
6 As opiniões emitidas pelos autores são de sua inteira e exclusiva responsabilidade.
7 Ao submeterem seus trabalhos à ARARIPE os autores certificam que os mesmos são de autoria própria e inéditos, ou seja, não publicados anteriormente em qualquer meio digital ou impresso.
8 A revista ARARIPE adota a Política de Acesso Livre para os trabalhos publicados sendo sua publicação de acesso livre, pública e gratuita. Portanto, os autores ao submeterem seus trabalhos concordam que os mesmos são de uso gratuito sob a licença Creative Commons - Atribuição Não-comercial 4.0 Internacional.
9 O trabalho submetido poderá passar por algum software em busca de possíveis plágios para averiguar a autenticidade do material e, assim, assegurar a credibilidade das publicações da ARARIPE e do próprio autor diante da comunidade filosófica do país e do exterior.
10 Mas, apesar disto, após aprovação e publicação do artigo, for constatando qualquer ilegalidade, fraude, ou outra atitude que coloque em dúvida a lisura da publicação, em especial a prática de plágio, o trabalho estará automaticamente rejeitado.
11 Caso o trabalho já tenha sido publicado, será imediatamente retirado da base da revista ARARIPE, sendo proibida sua posterior citação vinculada a ela e, no número seguinte em que ocorreu a publicação, será comunicado o cancelamento da referida publicação. Em caso de deflagração do procedimento para a retratação do trabalho, os autores serão previamente informados, sendo-lhes garantidos o direito à ampla defesa.
12 Os dados pessoais fornecidos pelos autores serão utilizados exclusivamente para os serviços prestados por essa publicação, não sendo disponibilizados para outras finalidades ou a terceiros.
