Good editorial practice policies

The Sophia Austral Magazine establishes its editorial processes based on the guidelines expressed by the Publications Ethics Committee (COPE [1]), International Standards for Editors [2], International Standards for Authors [3] (COPE), the Declaration of Singapore on Integrity in Research [4], Conflict Manual of interest of the Higher Council for Scientific Research [5] (CSIC) and Code of Good Practice [6] of the CSIC.

 Based on the foregoing, the following commitments and procedures are established:              

Editorial Board:

• The decision to accept or reject a work for its eventual inclusion in the editorial processes of the journal, should be based solely on the importance, originality, clarity and relevance of the paper with respect to the thematic guidelines of the journal.

·      At the moment of receiving a manuscript, the Editorial Committee may reject it without prior evaluation process, in those cases that do not conform to the editorial guidelines of the journal in (both content and format), lacking the quality that a scientific article requires or that possible inappropriate behaviors have been detected (example: plagiarism).  

• Without prejudice to what is stated in the previous point, in case a contribution has been negatively evaluated prior to the external peer evaluation process, the right to reply to the authors is established. They must submit, in writing, the reasons that support their appeal.

 

• The acceptance or rejection of a work for publication, finally falls on the Editorial Committee, based on the evaluation reports issued after completing the blind peer review process.

 

• The strict confidentiality of all documents received and the non-use of the data or contents of the work for personal investigations of any member of Editorial Committee or member of the journal's work team is guaranteed, without the express authorization of the authors.

 

• An evaluation process of a confidential nature (double blind peer) is guaranteed, transparent and appropriate, ensuring the anonymity of authors and reviewers.

 

• Select highly qualified and pertinent reviewers, seeking, in addition, that the process be carried out without biases or eventual conflicts of interest. The works will be evaluated by at least two reviewers. If one of the reviews implies rejection, the Editorial Committee is entitled to request a third evaluation.

 

• It establishes the instance in which the authors (s) report that a person should not review their work, supported by well-founded and acceptable reasons, and in such cases, the Editorial Committee may consider such request, not being obliged to access the veto.

 

• The Editorial Committee will ensure that during the process of revision of the works, special attention is given to those that meet the publication requirements to which the authors adhere, that is, that the articles are original, that they have not been published in another part and do not commit any type of inappropriate behavior. Upon detection or suspicion of any misconduct, the evaluated works will be rejected and, if detected after the publication, they will be unauthorized, which will be reported on the journal's website. The procedures to be followed in case of any inappropriate behavior (redundant or duplicated publication, plagiarism, invented data, conflict of interest or other ethical problem) will be aligned with the provisions of the Code of Conduct procedure designed by the Publications Ethics Committee (COPE)^[1].

 

• In case of the existence of any conflict of interest (personal, academic, commercial, etc.) on the part of a member of the Editorial Committee regarding a manuscript presented in the journal, it must be made known and abstained from participating in the process of evaluation, in order to guarantee an objective evaluation.

 

• Comply with the established times to carry out the evaluation process (4 months maximum).

 

• The instructions for presenting the work in the journal will be public knowledge.

 Evaluators:

 

• The evaluators of the writings entered into the journal must inform the editors of the existence of any conflict of interest (personal, academic, commercial, etc.) or any type of link or relationships that could influence or bias their critical judgment.

 

§  The evaluators are committed to make critical, objective, constructive and honest reviews, their judgments must be duly substantiated, and expressed with clarity, precision and impartiality.

 

§  The evaluation process will always be subject to strict conditions of confidentiality, the contents cannot be discussed with other people outside the Editorial Board without the authorization of the journal's General Editor. In the same way, the evaluators will not be able to use information to which they would have had access during the evaluation process, without previous, express, written and specific permission from the author.

 

§  Warn the Editor of any inappropriate behavior detected in the context of the review of a work, either in terms of a possible redundant or duplicate publication, plagiarism, invented data, conflict of interest or other ethical problem. §  Comply with a maximum period of 60 days to carry out the evaluation of the works. If at the time of receiving the request, is unable to meet deadlines, the evaluator must immediately inform the General Editor.

 

• Refrain from carrying out an evaluation when it exceeds its field of knowledge or specialization, immediately reporting to the General Editor.

 Authors:

 

• The papers presented in the journal, must be original and unpublished research, developed under high ethical standards, being responsible for the veracity and accuracy of the data.

 

• Authors should send the papers according to the editorial standards of the journal.

 

• The authors must guarantee that the submitted works have not been presented previously or simultaneously in another place and that they do not contain parts of other publications without the corresponding references. In the same way, they must guarantee that the data and results presented are true and have not been manipulated, falsified, invented or distorted.

 

• Authors should alert the editor quickly if they discover an error in any work submitted, accepted or published. The authors must cooperate with the editors in the issuance of corrections or retractions when necessary.

 

•  References and information from all sources, methods and results should be provided so that they can be used or replicated by other researchers.

 

§  Researchers must present their results honestly and without falsification or inadequate data manipulation. The research images (for example, micrographs, X-rays, images of electrophoresis gels) should not be modified in a deceptive manner.

 

§  Authors should not include references from other publications if they have not read the cited work.

 

• The authorship of the work must accurately reflect the degree of contribution of those who actually participated in the research. Those who have contributed tangentially or collaborated in purely technical aspects may be mentioned in a recognition section, in a footnote (It is recommended to check: [7] y [8]).

 

• The authors agree to respect the laws and conventions of copyright, in relation to the resources used in their work, namely, tables, figures, images, appointments, etc., must be reproduced with the corresponding permission and recognition.

 

• All data, texts, figures or ideas originated by other researchers must be duly recognized and should not be presented as if they were the authors themselves.

 

• The authors must inform the General Editor of any conflict of interest, whether economic or otherwise, that could affect the reliability of their work.

 

• Authors must disclose all sources of funding, sponsorship or any form of support for their research, whether it is direct or indirect assistance.

[1] https://publicationethics.org/resources/code-conduct. International standards for authors e International standards for editors, ambos disponibles en: https://publicationethics.org/node/11184

[2] https://publicationethics.org/files/International%20standard_editors_for%20website_11_Nov_2011.pdf

[3] https://publicationethics.org/files/International%20standards_authors_for%20website_11_Nov_2011.pdf

[4] http://www.singaporestatement.org/Translations/SS_Spanish.pdf

[5] http://www.csic.es/etica-en-la-investigacion#BPC - Manual de Conflictos de Intereses del CSIC, (Octubre, 2015).

[6] http://www.csic.es/etica-en-la-investigacion#BPC - Código de Buenas Prácticas Científicas del CSIC, (Marzo 2010).

[7] https://publicationethics.org/files/u2/2003pdf12.pdf

[8] We suggest checking, according to each discipline, the international standards regarding the average number of authors per article: http://www.coauthorindex.info/layout.php?id=inicio