Ethics policy and good editorial practices

Ciencia Nueva shares and promotes the ethics guidelines and good editorial practices of the COPE (Committee of Publication Ethics) thus ensuring transparency and integrity in all processes developed by the editorial team of the journal, as well as its collaborators in the roles of authors and evaluators.

Editorial Team:

• Ensure the confidentiality of all contributions received, whether they are published or discarded after the evaluation process, as well as the anonymity of authors and evaluators at all times.
• Review compliance with all ethical and editorial criteria of submitted contributions, especially with respect to plagiarism verification, as a condition for the initiation of the evaluation process. In any case, the authors should be informed promptly and clearly of any decision taken, or they should seek clarification when the situation warrants it.
• Initiate in a timely manner the process of searching for peer evaluators, ensuring the ethical and scientific suitability of the evaluators assigned for each article according to their academic trajectories and publications in relation to the subject, taking into account the suggestions of the authors as long as this does not represent any conflict of interest.
• Give effective processing to all complaints, claims or suspicions in situations of fraud, plagiarism, anti plagiarism or any other conduct that goes against the ethical guidelines subscribed to by the journal.
• Resolve the concerns of authors and evaluators in a timely and appropriate manner, publish retractions and errors where necessary, and make appropriate adjustments to files published in digital format in cases of inaccuracies or errors in the published information.
• Keep authors informed of all developments in the course of the editorial process, especially when complaints, claims, or suspicions of editorial conduct contrary to the journal's ethical policy are filed.
• Grant conditions of equality and impartiality for the treatment of all contributions received, above the personal or institutional affinity between the authors and the members of the editorial team of the journal.

 

Authors:

• Declare the authorship and possession of intellectual property rights over all the contents submitted to the journal, as well as the respective authorization for the case of supporting graphic material.
• Reference duly and based on the citation rules, indicated in the editorial policy, all own or third-party works published in other scientific or dissemination journals, internet portals, media or institutional repositories.
• Clearly state the sources of funding for the research that led to the research articles sent to the journal, as well as the participation of all the people involved in the preparation of the article.
• Guarantee the originality of the contributions sent to the journal, which must not be committed to publishing processes in any other medium.

Evaluators:

• Declare potential conflicts of interest before starting the evaluation of the articles.
• Commit to preserving the confidentiality of articles under evaluation.
• Refrain from taking and/or sharing ideas or fragments of assigned articles.
• Advise the editorial team of any suspicion of fraudulent conduct, plagiarism, anti plagiarism or recycling of published texts.
• Contribute to the authors' formative process with comprehensive and detailed observations and comments oriented to the academic qualification of the articles.
• Meet the deadlines assigned for the evaluation and inform the editorial team in a timely manner when there are inconveniences that prevent the fulfillment of those deadlines.

Authorship criteria [1]:

An “author” is the person who has made a significant intellectual contribution to the article, therefore, all persons named as authors must meet the authorship requirements, and all those who meet them must be explicitly mentioned.

Three basic criteria must be met collectively to be recognized as an author: 

1. a) Substantial contribution to the design and design, data acquisition, analysis and interpretation of the study.
2. b) Drafting or reviewing intellectual content.
3. c) Approval of the final version.

The order of authorship must be a joint decision of the co-authors. There are three types of authorship that are considered unacceptable: “ghost” authors, who contribute substantially but are not recognized (often paid by commercial promoters); “guest” authors, who make no discernible contribution but are named to increase publication possibilities; and “honorary” authors, based solely on a tenuous affiliation with a study.

Recommendations:

•  Before starting the investigation it is recommended to document the function and the manner in which each investigator's authorship will be recognized. 
• One should not lie about the participation of a person in the research or publication, if his contribution is considered “substantial” authorship is justified, either as an author or as a collaborator.
• No authorship should be assigned without the person's consent. 
• All persons named as authors must meet the authorship requirements, and all eligible persons must appear as authors or contributors.
• Some groups place authors in alphabetical order, sometimes with a note to explain that all authors made equal contributions to the study and publication.

Prevention of Plagiarism

All contributions sent to the journal, without any exception, are analyzed with the iThenticate software to identify the index of matches with other publications, using this analysis all sources with which textual similarities are presented are indicated.

The reports generated by the software are analyzed carefully and individually, in case it is found that any of the matches identified is not properly referenced the author or authors will be asked for clarification and the corresponding adjustments, then the article will be subject again to the analysis of the software.

If the match rate is high, compromising the originality of the article, and replication of published information from other sources is found, the author will be informed that the contribution cannot be accepted for evaluation and the editorial process will be completed immediately.

At all times, the editorial team will be attentive to receiving and processing complaints about possible cases of fraud, plagiarism or self-plagiarism forwarded by readers, authors or evaluators about articles in the editorial process or that have been published.

Conflicts of Interest

The members of the Editorial Committee of the journal are entitled to submit their own contributions, provided that they separate themselves from the process of assigning peer evaluators and of deciding whether or not to approve the article. For their part, people linked to the editorial and technical team of the journal will not be able to serve as authors in the indexed sections, this does not exclude them from collaborating as authors in the sections of Reviews and Annals and Memoirs.

In the case of evaluators, they should express their impediment to take part in the evaluation when they have had any link with the author of the work so that it is not possible to retain the criterion of anonymity.

Receiving complaints, misconduct alerts and conflicts of interest

Readers, authors and reviewers may raise their complaints and/or advise of instances when they suspect or have evidence of non-compliance with our ethical guidelines at any stage of the editorial process, including, but not limited to:

• Plagiarism 
• Self-plagiarism or recycling of previously published works
• Disputes of authorship and contribution
• Manipulation in the evaluation process
• Conflicts of interest

The Editorial Committee will be responsible for receiving the claims, evaluating the evidence attached and requesting the explanation from the author or authors, guaranteeing in any case due process. It shall also take charge of making a final decision taking into account all parties involved. In case the situation to be studied involves any of the team members or the editorial committee the person will be removed from the process until its completion.

[1] Elsevier, <<Authorship. Ethics in research & publication>>, accessed August 8, 2014,