Código ético
Code of Ethics
DECLARATION ON ETHICS AND MALPRACTICE IN SCIENTIFIC PUBLISHING
The Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement of the Intercátedras Network's (RIHALC) Journal of Contemporary Latin American History supports the combined efforts of authors, editors, and reviewers to produce a responsible research publication.
This statement is based on ethical principles that, in general, follow the lines established by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).
- RESPONSIBILITIES OF AUTHORS
The texts submitted for publication must be the result of original and unpublished research. They must include the data obtained and used, as well as an objective discussion of their results. Sufficient information must be provided so that any specialist can repeat the research carried out and confirm or refute the interpretations defended in the work.
Authors should be aware of and refrain from engaging in scientific misconduct and infringing upon publication ethics.
Authors should present their results clearly, honestly and without falsification or inappropriate manipulation of data.
Authors should ensure that the data and results presented in the paper are original and have not been copied, invented, distorted or manipulated.
Plagiarism in all its forms, multiple or redundant publication, and invention or manipulation of data constitute serious misconduct and are considered scientific frauds.
Authors should provide appropriate authorship and acknowledgement. Authors should refrain from deliberately misrepresenting a scientist's relationship to the published work. All authors must have contributed significantly to the research.
Authors should inform the editor when they have a direct or indirect conflict of interest with the editors or members of the editorial team or the international scientific committee.
No significant part of the article will have been previously published, either as an article or as a chapter, or will be under consideration for publication elsewhere.
When an author discovers a serious error in his or her work, he or she has the obligation to communicate it to the journal as soon as possible, in order to modify the article, withdraw it, retract it or publish a correction or erratum.
If the possible error is detected by any of the members of the Editorial Committee, the author is obliged to prove that his or her work is correct.
Authors are required, for all materials submitted, to participate in a peer review process.
- RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE EDITORS
The Editorial Team will be impartial in managing the works proposed for publication and must respect the intellectual independence of the authors, who must be granted the right of reply if they have been evaluated negatively.
The persons who make up the Editorial Team have the obligation to keep the texts received and their content confidential until they have been accepted for publication. Only then can their title and authorship be disseminated.
Likewise, no member of the Editorial Board may use data, arguments or interpretations contained in unpublished works for his or her own research, unless he or she has the express written consent of the person or persons who have carried it out.
2.1. Decision to publish
All contributions will be initially evaluated by the Editorial Team. This is solely responsible for selecting, processing and deciding which of the articles submitted to the journal meet the editorial objectives and therefore could be published. Each paper considered suitable is sent to two independent reviewers, experts in their field and able to evaluate the specific qualities of the work. The editor is responsible for the final decision on whether the document is accepted or rejected.
The decision to publish a paper will always be measured by its relevance to researchers, practitioners, and potential readers. Editors must make impartial decisions regardless of commercial considerations.
Editors who make final decisions about manuscripts should withdraw from editorial decisions if they have conflicts of interest or relationships that pose potential problems with respect to the articles under consideration. Responsibility for the final decision regarding publication should be attributed to an editor who has no conflict of interest.
2.2 Review of the work
The Editorial Board will ensure that the published research papers have been evaluated by at least two specialists in the field, and that the review process has been fair and impartial.
The reviewed articles are treated confidentially by the members of the editorial team, the members of the international scientific committee and the reviewers
The Editorial Board will value and appreciate the contribution of those who have collaborated in the evaluations of the papers submitted to the journal. It should disregard those who make poor quality, incorrect, disrespectful or late submission evaluations.
2.3. Identification and prevention of misconduct
Under no circumstances shall the members of the drafting committee and the scientific committee encourage misconduct of any kind or knowingly allow such misconduct to occur.
The members of the editorial board and the international scientist will seek to prevent misconduct by informing authors and reviewers of the ethical behaviour required of them.
Reviewers and members of the scientific and editorial committees will be requested to be aware of all types of misconduct in order to identify documents where research misconduct of any kind has occurred or appears to have occurred and to deal with complaints accordingly.
In the event of misconduct, the journal editor is responsible for resolving the problem. He or she may work in conjunction with members of the editorial and scientific committees, expert reviewers, and subject matter experts.
The problem will be documented accordingly. All factual questions should be documented: who, what, when, where, why. All relevant documents should be kept, in particular the articles in question.
The editor of the journal will contact the author. In this way, the author is given the opportunity to respond or comment on the complaint, allegation or dispute.
In the event that misconduct has occurred or appears to have occurred, or in the case of necessary corrections, the editorial board will address the various cases following the recommendations of COPE
Great care will be taken to distinguish cases of honest human error from deliberate intent to defraud.
The editorial board will consider withdrawing a publication in the event of misconduct, or issuing a note in the event of inconclusive evidence of misconduct, or requesting correction of the false segment.
- RESPONSIBILITIES OF REVIEWERS
All reviewers should be aware of and consider the editorial policy and the statement of ethics and malpractice of the publication.
The journal will require potential reviewers to have significant scientific or work experience in a relevant field. They should have recently undertaken research and/or work and have acquired recognised expertise from their peers. Potential reviewers should provide personal and professional information that is accurate and provides a fair representation of their experience.
Also, all reviewers must withdraw if they know that they are not qualified to evaluate a manuscript, if they feel that their evaluation of the material will not be objective, or if they consider themselves to be in a conflict of interest.
Reviewers should note relevant published work that has not yet been cited in the reviewed material. If necessary, the editor may issue a correction request to this effect.
Reviewers are requested to identify documents where investigative misconduct has occurred or appears to have occurred and to inform the editorial board, which will treat each case accordingly.
- CONFLICT OF INTEREST
Members of the editorial team and reviewers will withdraw in case of conflict of interest with respect to an author(s), or the content of a manuscript to be evaluated. Any conflict of interest between authors, reviewers and members of the editorial team and the scientific committee will be avoided.
Editors and reviewers should withdraw from making decisions when
- There is a direct relationship between an author and a reviewer.
- There is a recent and significant professional collaboration between reviewers and authors.
- An editor or reviewer is a collaborator on the project being submitted.
- The editor or reviewer has a financial interest in a company or competing company with a financial interest in the submission.
- The editor or reviewer believes that he or she cannot be objective, either for personal reasons or because of a financial interest not otherwise covered by the policy.
Authors are required, for all materials submitted, to participate in a peer review process.
