ETHICAL COMMITMENT FOR THE PUBLICATION OF ARTICLES

Historia. Instituciones. Documentos (History. Institutions. Documents) has adopted the Guide to Good Practices for Publication, elaborated by the CSIC, through  which we intend to establish a code of conduct directed to the concerned parties in the management and publication of scientific results: the Editorial Board, authors and reviewers of articles.

1. THE EDITORIAL BOARD

The Editorial Board of ETF III is composed of the director, editors and the staff of the editorial board; they are responsible for the published contents of the journal, and hence must ensure its scientific standards, avoid bad practices in publishing the results of research and editing the articles in due time.

This responsibility includes the following principles:

1.1. Impartiality

The Editorial Board must be impartial in the treatment of papers proposed for publication, must respect the authors’ intellectual independence, and must recognized their right to a response in case their work has been evaluated negatively.

Papers that report negative research results should not be excluded from consideration.

1.2. Confidentiality

Members of the Editorial Board are required to ensure the confidentiality of all manuscripts received and of their content until they have been accepted for publication. Only then may the title and authors of the article be communicated.

In addition, no member of an Editorial Board may use data, lines of reasoning or interpretations in unpublished manuscripts for his or her own research, except with the authors’ express written consent.

1.3. Review of the Papers

The editorial Board must ensure that that all published research articles have been evaluated by at least two subject specialists, and that the review process has been fair and impartial.

Historia. Instituciones. Documentos, uses the double-blind process (anonymity of those who have elaborated the paper and of the evaluators). When one of the two evaluations is negative, a third a third review will be requested.

Those who submit a paper for evaluation may propose possible evaluators for their work. The Editorial Board will reserve the right to accept or decline this proposal, without having to communicate its decision.

The Editorial Board will stress the need for evaluators to check for originality of the articles and to detect plagiarism, redundant articles, as well as falsified or manipulated facts. Moreover, the Board must clearly identify the sections of the journal whose contents are subject to peer review.

1.4. Manuscript acceptance or rejection

Responsibility for accepting or rejecting manuscripts for publication rests with the Editorial Board, which should base their decision on the reports received about the manuscript. The reviewers should base their decision on the quality of the manuscript in terms of its relevance, novelty and clarity of writing and reporting.

The Editorial Board may reject a submitted manuscript without external review if the members believe it to be unsuitable for the journal because it does not reach an acceptable level of quality, is outside the scientific aims and scope of the journal or series, or contains evidence of scientific fraud.

1.5. Journal article retraction and expression of concern

The Editorial Board reserves the right to retract published articles which are subsequently determined to be unreliable due to unintentional error or scientific fraud or misconduct: data fabrication, manipulation or appropriation, text plagiarism, self-plagiarism and redundant or duplicate publication, omission of references to sources consulted, use of content without permission or without justification, etc. The decision to retract is based on the need to correct the scientific record of publication and thereby ensure its integrity.

In case of a conflict regarding duplicate publication caused by the simultaneous publication of the same article in two different journals, the date the manuscript was received by each journal will be used to decide which of the two versions should be retracted. If an error affects only part of a published article, it can be subsequently corrected by publishing a note from the editor, a correction or an erratum notice.

If any conflict arises, the journal will ask the author or authors to provide an explanation and relevant evidence for clarification, and will reach a decision based on this information.

The journal must publish the retraction notice in both its print and electronic editions, and the notice must mention the reasons for the retraction, in order to differentiate between misconduct and unintentional error. The journal will notify the responsible authorities at the authors’ institution of the retraction. The decision to retract an article should be reached as soon as possible in order to prevent the misleading article from being cited by other researchers.

Retracted articles will remain available in the electronic edition of the journal, and will be identified clearly and unambiguously as retracted in order to distinguish retractions from other corrections or commentaries. In the print edition, retractions will be reported as promptly as possible as an editorial or note from the editor with the same wording as in the electronic edition.

Prior to final retraction, the journal may issue an expression of concern in which the necessary information is provided with the same wording as used for a retraction. The expression of concern will be used for as brief a period as possible and will be withdrawn or superseded, if appropriate, by formal retraction of the article.

1.6 Application of the Regulations of the Editorial Board

The person in charge of the direction of the journal is responsible for the correct application of the norms that regulate the Board and must guarantee that all its members are aware of them. This includes promoting and representing the journal in different forums; suggesting and implementing improvements; garnering the collaboration of specialists in the field; making a preliminary review of the papers submitted; writing for the journal editorials, revisions, commentaries, news, reviews etc.; and attending meetings of the Editorial Board.

1.7 Guidelines for authors

The instructions for manuscript preparation for the journal (text length, figure preparation, reference formats, etc.) must be publicly available.

1.8. Conflict of interest

Among other situations, conflict of interest arises when an author of a paper submitted to the journal is a member of the Editorial Board, has a direct personal or professional relationship, or is closely related with previous or current research carried out by a member of the Editorial Board. Those who are affected by any of these cases must abstain from intervening in the evaluation process of the proposed article.

 

2. ON THE AUTHORSHIP OF ARTICLES

The authors of works submitted for publication in the journal are primarily responsible for the content, and are thus obligated to follow ethical guidelines intended to ensure, among other considerations, that the work is original and that authorship has been attributed appropriately.

2.1. Publication guidelines

Manuscripts submitted for publication must be based on original, unpublished research. They must include the data obtained and used, as well as an objective discussion of the results. They must supply enough information to allow any specialist to reproduce the research and confirm or refute the interpretations defended in the manuscript.

All authors must appropriately reference the sources of all ideas or phrases taken verbatim from previously published articles, in accordance with the instructions and guidelines of the journal or series.

When illustrations are used as part of the research, the methods used to create or obtain them must be explained appropriately whenever this information is needed to understand the images. If any graphic material (e.g., figures, photographs, maps, etc.) has been entirely or partially reproduced from other publications, the authors must cite the source and obtain permission, if needed, to reproduce the material.

The unnecessary subdivision of articles should be avoided. If the research report is very long, is can be published in two or more parts; each part should deal with a particular aspect of the overall study. Different articles relating to the same research should be published in the same journal to facilitate readers’ interpretation of the work.

2.2. Originality and Plagiarism

All authors must ensure that the data and results reported in the manuscript are original and have not been copied, fabricated, falsified or manipulated.

Plagiarism in all forms, self-plagiarism, multiple or redundant publication, and data fabrication or manipulation constitute serious ethical failings and are considered scientific fraud.

Authors must not submit to the journal any manuscript that is simultaneously under consideration by another publisher and must not submit their manuscript to another publisher until they are notified that it has been rejected or have voluntarily withdrawn it from consideration. However, an article that builds upon an item published previously as a short report, brief communication or conference abstract may be published as long as it appropriately cites the earlier source it is based on, and as long as the new manuscript represents a substantial modification of the previous publication.

Secondary publication is also acceptable if the later manuscript is targeted to completely different readers – for example, if the article is to be published in different languages or if one version is intended for specialists whereas the other version is intended for the general public. These circumstances must be specified and the original publication and must be cited appropriately.

2.3. Authorship of the Paper

If the manuscript has more than one author, the author responsible for the work must ensure appropriate recognition of all persons who contributed significantly to the conception, planning, design and performance of the study, to obtaining the data, and to the interpretation and discussion of the results. All persons named as authors share responsibility for the work reported in the manuscript. Likewise, the person responsible for the work must ensure that all persons named as authors have reviewed and approved the final version of the manuscript and have agreed to its possible publication.

The person responsible for the work must ensure that no person responsible for the manuscript and who meets the criteria noted above for scientific authorship has been omitted from the list of authors. This will avoid ghost authorship and gift authorship, which constitute scientific misconduct.

In addition, an acknowledgment must be included in the article to note the contributions of other collaborators who are not authors and are not responsible for the final version of the manuscript.

If the Editorial Board or the authors so request, a brief description of the individual contributions of each member of the group of co-authors may appear in the published version of the work.

2.4. Sources of Information

All publications that have influenced the research should be acknowledged in the manuscript; accordingly, all original sources upon which information in the manuscript is based should be identified and cited in the reference list. However, references that are not relevant to the research or that refer to similar examples should not be included, and overreliance on references to research that forms part of the common body of scientific knowledge should be avoided.

Authors should not use information obtained privately through conversations, correspondence or informal discussions with colleagues, unless they have obtained explicit written permission from the source of the information, and the information was provided in the context of a scientific consultation.

2.5. Significant Errors in Published Papers

When authors discover a serious error in their work, they must report this to the person responsible for the journal or series as soon as possible in order to modify the work, withdraw it, retract it, or publish a correction or erratum notice.

If the Editorial Team detects the potential error, the authors must then demonstrate that their work is free from error.

The process to be used to resolve conflicts that may arise is described above in section 1.5

2.6. Conflict of Interest

The text of the article must be accompanied by a statement in case there is any commercial, financial or personal link that may affect the results and the conclusions of the paper. Moreover, it is mandatory to state all sources of funding that have been granted for the study. This information will be included in the published version of the article.

 

3. EVALUATION OF THE PAPERS

External experts who participate in manuscript review play an essential role in the process that guarantees the quality of published material. They assist the Editorial Teams of journals and series in making their decisions, help to improve the submitted works, and provide a warranty of scientific merit.

3.1. Confidentiality

Peer reviewers must consider all manuscripts as confidential documents both during and after the peer review process, until after they are published.

Under no circumstances should the reviewer divulge or use any information, details, lines of reasoning or interpretations in the material to be reviewed for his or her own benefit or that of any other persons, or with the intent to harm any third parties. Only under exceptional circumstances may the reviewer obtain advice from other specialists in the subject of the manuscript, and the reviewer must inform the Editor of the journal or series of this measure.

3.2. Objectivity

Experts who evaluate papers must judge the quality of the whole paper objectively, i.e., they must consider the background information used to formulate the hypothesis of the study, the theoretical and experimental data and their interpretation. Attention must also be given to the presentation and writing/reporting of the text.

They must be specific with their criticisms and provide their comments in an objective, constructive manner. They must justify their judgments with reasoning, avoid hostility and respect the authors’ intellectual independence.

Peer reviewers must notify the person who requested the review of any substantial similarities between the manuscript under review and any other published work or manuscript they are aware of and that is undergoing review for another publication. In addition, reviewers must draw attention to any text or data that have been plagiarized from different authors or self-plagiarized or duplicated from other works by the authors of the manuscript under review. Reviewers must also alert the person who requested the review if they suspect or are aware of any text or data that have been falsified, fabricated or manipulated.

3.3. Timely of response

Peer reviewers must act promptly and provide their report by the agreed deadline, and must notify the Editor’s office of possible delays.

In addition, they must notify the Editor’s office as soon as possible if they do not feel qualified to evaluate the manuscript or if they are unable to complete their review by the agreed deadline.

 

3.4. Acknowledgment of sources of information

Peer reviewers must verify that previously published studies relevant to the topic have been cited. To do so they must review the literature cited in the manuscript with a view to suggesting the removal of superfluous or redundant references, or the addition of references that were not cited.

3.5. Conflict of Interest

Peer reviewers must decline to review when they suspect or are aware that they may be influenced by any of the situations potentially able to affect their judgment of the work, as described above in section 1.9 of these Guidelines.

Conflict of interest may also arise when the manuscript is closely related with work the reviewer is currently performing or has previously published. In such cases, and if in doubt, the reviewer should decline to review the manuscript and return it to the Editorial Team, with an explanation of the reasons for his or her decision.

References

- CSIC, Guía de buenas prácticas para la publicación (Guide to Good Practices for Publication http://revistas.csic.es/public/guia_buenas_practicas_CSIC.pdf

- COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics): http://publicationethics.org

- European Association of Science Editors Guidelines: http://www.ease.org.uk

- Ethical Guidelines for Journal Publication: http://sjss.universia.net/codigo-etico.jsp