Ethics supervision policy

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.

Process for identifying and dealing with complaints of misconduct in the investigation

Readers, authors, and evaluators may raise their complaints and/or concerns 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 team is responsible for receiving complaints from readers, authors and / or evaluators following compliance with the following process, in accordance with the COPE guidelines:

  1. The reader will send his claim in writing through the email ciencianueva-utp.edu.co with the corresponding evidence.
  2. The editorial team shall confirm receipt of the claim within five (5) business days and shall evaluate the contents of the claim as well as the evidence provided. Claims related to plagiarism will be subject to a match verification with the iThenticate software.
  3.  In the event that an activity is found that is contrary to the ethics policy of the journal on the part of the author, the editorial team shall give written notification and request the corresponding explanations, granting a period not exceeding fifteen (15) working days to receive a response.
  4. Upon receipt of the author's response, the editorial team will make a decision to:
    a.     In case a minor case of plagiarism or autoplagiarism is found but it is clarified that it was the result of human error and not an action of bad faith: Request the author to edit the document when it is identified that there was no action of bad faith.
    b. In case the author clarifies the situation: Inform the reader who made the complaint about the arguments expressed by the author and thank him for his interest in the transparency of the publication.
    c. In case of a conscious and bad faith action that violates the ethics policy of the journal by the author: delete the article in question and publicly report the situation with a message in the "Notices" section of the journal, as well as on social networks.

In all cases, the editorial team takes responsibility for the final decision considering all parties involved. In the event that the situation to be studied involves any of the members of the team or the editorial committee, the person will be removed from the process until its completion.