The journal Hábitat y Sociedad is committed to the academic community in ensuring the ethics and quality of published articles. Our journal has as a reference the Code of Conduct and Good Practices that, for editors of scientific journals, is defined by the COMMITTEE ON PUBLICATION ETHICS (COPE) and the one for the journals of the CSIC (Superior Council of Scientific Investigations-Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas) of Spain. It also extends these criteria to align and contribute to the objectives established in the WORLD DECLARATION ON HIGHER EDUCATION IN THE XXI CENTURY: VISION AND ACTION[1] , particularly we are aligned with Article 2: Ethical function, autonomy, responsibility and prospective.
In line with this, the Editorial Policy of the Journal has been directed, since its beginning, to create a multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary scientific publication space aimed especially at socially committed researchers in the fulfillment of the Right to Housing and the City, to an urban and rural ecologically, economically and socially sustainable development, to the defense of cultural and natural heritage and of the landscape.
In line with all this, we publish the following code of conduct by which the editorial team, authors and reviewers of the works will be governed[2] .
a) The journal Hábitat y Sociedad clearly states the criteria it uses and the precise process followed by the publication proposals.
b) The review procedure is double blind between peers. The people who review the work are specialists in the substantive contribution offered in the proposal.
c) Double blind. Those who review do not have access to the authorship of the proposal. Those who submit the proposal do not have access to the identity of the revisions. The proposal is never sent to less than two reviewers.
d) The review time is clearly stipulated and everyone involved knows about it. The direction of the journal or the publication route, guides this process and these deadlines with precision.
e) The authors of the work are informed with agility about the moment of the process in which the proposal is found, which implies at least five moments:
f) The review is not only scientifically coherent, but also humanely respectful. Any criticism or suggestion to the content or to the form must be properly argued. It is a "peer review" where any position of power, vexation, disrespectful language, disparagement or similar behavior has no place.
g) The editor has the function of sending the report back to the reviewer to refine these aspects, before sending the review to the author.
h) The proposal that is submitted for review is property of the authors. The privileged access to its content should remain without being used or appropriate. Only when the work is already public, its content becomes usable.
i) The Editorial Board must ensure the originality and the unpublished nature of the works received, and must ensure that in the evaluation process these aspects are also monitored and plagiarism, self-plagiarism and redundant or duplicated publication are detected, understood as the total, partial or altered copy of a work published by the same author to make it appear different, as well as falsified or manipulated data. In addition, the contents that are subject to peer review must be clearly indicated.
j) The journal maintains a specific and public editorial policy that obliges authors to report on the specific contribution of each one of them in the papers published, as well as on the criteria chosen to decide the order of signing of the papers.
k) The Editorial Team will appreciate and recognize the contribution of those who have collaborated in the evaluations of the works submitted to the journal or collection. Additionally, it will promote that academic authorities will recognize peer review activities as part of the scientific process. It will get rid of those who carry out low quality, incorrect or disrespectful evaluations, or evaluations submitted after the established deadlines.
l) An editorial policy is followed regarding the citation of funding sources in published articles, according to which the journal will indicate the funding agency (s) and the code (s) of the project (s) within the framework of which the research leading to the publication has been developed. Authors will be instructed to reference this in the acknowledgments of the articles. Likewise, the journal will store this information in the metadata.
m) Use of inclusive language: By writing an article, we are transmitting a way of being and thinking. At Hábitat y Sociedad journal, we have an unwaivable commitment to equity and respect for all people, respecting and celebrating diversity. For this reason, the articles will avoid any claim of superiority for reasons of sex, class, culture, ethnic origin or any other difference between people. Authors should ensure that they use bias-free language, avoid stereotypes, and commit to inclusive language. In particular, the concealment of women behind the masculine generic and the use of initials in bibliographic citations, in which the full names of the authors cited, must be included. As a more general orientation, the journal “Hábitat y Sociedad” assumes the guide for a non-sexist use of the language of the Autonomous University of Madrid, also adopted by the CSIC, a guide available at the following links:
For papers written in English, the guide published by the American Phylosophical Association can be used as an orientation, available in the following link:
1. Intellectual honesty
a) The sources cited actually sign what is indicated in the text, have been effectively consulted and respond only to criteria of scientific and ethical relevance.
b) The data that are used have not been invented, distorted, manipulated or selected at convenience.
c) Work signatures must satisfactorily reflect actual authorship, which implies that signatures will not be used for criteria other than to accurately reflect authorship. In this sense, the authors must provide the journal with information on the specific contribution of each and every one of the signatories to the published works. The order of signature of the articles by the authors must be fair, and information must be provided on the criteria chosen to decide the order, which faithfully reflects either the level of contribution to the work presented or the result of a fair procedure that combines the signature order in a succession of publications of similar relevance.
d) The discourse is well-founded, be it in theories, in data or in experiences.
e) Regarding the use of terms and expressions:
f) The way the text is presented is well organized and allows going from the objectives to the conclusions in an understandable way.
g) The methods, techniques or any of the tools that are put to use are used correctly.
h) Authors must state in the acknowledgments of the papers the funding agency(s) and the code(s) of the project(s) within the framework of which the research leading to the publication has been developed.
2. It is innovative.
a) The work offers a model, an approach, a critical vision, a synthesis, evidences before a discussion or open debate, or a proposal that has not been published before.
b) What it is offered is the central aspect of the work. The rest is required to substantiate, argue or justify the proposal.
c) It tries to make clear the authorship of the two mentioned elements.
d) It is reasonably complete in its proposal, that is, it does not leave for other publications aspects that positively complete what is presented.
3. Practice transparency.
a) At the origin of the data:
b) At the origin of ideas.
c) In the origin of the resources, whether economic (entities that subsidize), human (organizations or people that have contributed with their work) or of any other type. This implies a convenient listing of the identities of these people or groups, except in the case that the identity must be safeguarded, that is, hidden for ethical reasons.
d) In the authorship. In addition to what is related to signatures, the relevant information about the identity of the research group, the Institution of reference and way of contact should be clearly exposed.
4. It is relevant and responsible.
a) It is relevant to science and society.
b) The research group assumes responsibility for what it communicates, in terms of the consequences that may arise from the scientific and social processes that it fosters, reinforces or justifies.
5. Meet the ethical standards.
a) Ethics of the objectives. The ultimate justification for the work, contemplated in the argumentation of the objectives, responds to an ethical concern. This circumstance increases in guarantee if the identification and formulation of the objectives has been through a request, demand or participation of groups, movements or civic organizations.
b) Ethics of participants. If the participation of people as subjects of study has been required, the principles of respect, beneficence and justice are applied. In the specific case that the materialization of that respect results in an informed consent document, this is not only endorsed by the signature of participants, but also includes the signature of the researchers, by which confirm their specific commitment with the conditions of participation and the specific consequences that derive from it.
c) Ethics of the results. In the publication, the design part (and its practical implementation) responds to the ethical imperative of the return of results. Some possibilities are:
d) Use inclusive language. The content of the article is exposed through inclusive language, following the guidelines that are collected, and can be consulted, in the ethical criteria of the editorial team of the Hábitat y Sociedad journal: By writing an article we are transmitting a way of being and thinking. At Hábitat y Sociedad journal we have an unwaivable commitment to equity and respect for all people, respecting and celebrating diversity. For this reason, the articles will avoid any claim of superiority for reasons of sex, class, culture, ethnic origin or any other difference between people. Authors should ensure that they use bias-free language, avoid stereotypes, and commit to inclusive language. In particular, the concealment of women behind the masculine generic and the use of initials in bibliographic citations, in which the full names of the authors and authors cited, must be included. As a more general orientation, the magazine “Hábitat y Sociedad” assumes the guide for a non-sexist use of the language of the Autonomous University of Madrid, also adopted by the CSIC.
6. It is positioned.
a) Taking side, based on a critical analysis of the socio-environmental context; including judgments, opinions and other similar elements, substantiated, argued or supported by theoretical developments, models or data.
b) It is proactive. The content is clear, not only the description of the phenomenon that is addressed, but the intervention that has been made or that could be done to solve or improve the situation. In other words, there is not only a descriptive attitude, but also a concrete spirit of improvement.
c) In the text, the ethical positioning of the authors must be explained as acknowledgments, a section, or footnote at the first page, with not a lesser relevance than the theoretical positioning.
People who participate in the review of papers play an essential role in the process that guarantees the quality of the publication. They assist the editorial board in making editorial decisions, helping to improve the published works, and providing a guarantee of scientific accreditation.
1. Confidentiality
Whoever carries out a review must consider the work to be reviewed as a confidential document until its publication, both during and after the review process. In no case should they disseminate or use the information, details, arguments or interpretations contained in the text subject to review for their own benefit or for the benefit other persons, or to harm third parties. Only in special cases, they can seek for the advice of other specialists in the field, a circumstance of which they must inform the direction of the journal.
2. Objectivity
Whoever does a review must objectively judge the quality of the complete work, that is, including the information on which the working hypothesis is based, the theoretical and experimental data and their interpretation, without neglecting the presentation and writing of the text.
Likewise, they must specify their criticisms, and be objective and constructive in their comments. They have to argue properly their judgments, without adopting hostile positions and respecting the intellectual independence of whoever has made the work.
Whoever carries out an evaluation must warn, whoever has commission it to them, for any similarity relevant between the work submitted to evaluation and another work published or in the process of evaluation in another publication of which they have knowledge. In addition, they have to call on the attention to texts or data plagiarized by others or by the same author or authors of the work evaluated, or on the suspicion or founded certainty that they are falsified, invented or manipulated.
3. Response time
Whoever does a review must act quickly and must deliver her/his report in the agreed time, so she/he will notify the Direction of the journal or collection of possible delays.
If the person carrying out an evaluation does not consider herself/himself capable of judging the work commissioned, or If she/he believes that she/he can not complete the task within the agreed period, she/he must notify it as soon as possible to the Direction of the journal or collection.
4. Recognition of information sources
Whoever does a review must verify that the relevant works published on the subject area, are already mentioned. With this objective, they will review the bibliography included in the text, suggesting the elimination of superfluous or redundant references, or the incorporation of other not cited.
5. Conflict of interests
Whoever does a review must refuse to review a work when they suspect or know that they are included in any of the situations that may affect their judgment about that work.
Whoever does a review must refuse to review a work when they suspect or know that they are included in any of the situations that may affect their judgment about that work.
Conflicts of interest may also arise when the work to be evaluated is closely related to the one that the evaluator is developing at that time or with the one the evaluator has already published. In these cases, when in doubt, they must renounce the task entrusted to them and return the work to the Editorial Board, indicating the reasons for such decision.
Guía de buenas prácticas de las publicaciones periódicas y unitarias de la Agencia Estatal Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas. Gobierno de España, Ministerio de Ciencia, Innovación y Universidades, 2016
Declaración Mundial sobre la Educación Superior en el Siglo XXI: Visión y Acción. UNESCO, 1998
Principios de Transparencia y Mejores Prácticas en Publicaciones Académicas. Comité de Ética para Publicaciones (COPE)
Guide for a non-sexist use of the language of the Autonomous University of Madrid, also adopted by the CSIC, guide available at the following links:
[1] http://www.unesco.org/education/educprog/wche/declaration_spa.htm
[2] The mayor part of this code of conduct has been written by Vicente Manzano Arrondo and Antonio Cano Orellana, researchers from the University of Seville, taking it from its unpublished text: “Criterios éticos para la publicación científica. Una propuesta”
EDITORIAL TEAM
Esteban de Manuel Jerez, PhD (Editor-in-Chief)
Ibán Díaz Parra, PhD (Editor)
Secretary
Glenda Dimuro Peter, PhD
Marta Donadei, PhD
Publication Frecuency: Hábitat y Sociedad is published in November in one yearly volume.
ISSN: 2173-125X
https://doi.org/10.12795/HabitatySociedad
Hábitat y Sociedad is a scientific journal of the Seville University Press, with international arbitration, of annual periodicity, which is published in November.
It is aimed at the dissemination of papers that contribute to a complex understanding of the social habitat, prioritizing research on participatory processes of Social Production and Social Management of the Habitat for the achievement of the right to the city and the recovery of balance with the ecosystem.
It is an interdisciplinary journal insofar as we understand social habitat as a complex concept that is generated by the dynamic interaction of physical, social, cultural, economic, legal, environmental and political situations, on scales that go from housing to territory.
La Universidad de Sevilla se reserva todos los derechos sobre el contenido de las revistas científicas tuteladas por su editorial. Los respectivos textos no pueden ser utilizados, distribuirse, comercializarse, reproducirse o transmitirse por ningún procedimiento informático, electrónico o mecánico con ánimo de lucro, directo o indirecto, ni tampoco incluirse en repositorios ajenos, sin permiso escrito de la Editorial Universidad de Sevilla. La distribución de estas obras derivadas se debe hacer con una licencia igual a la que regula la obra original y podrán ser usados y citados para fines científicos y referenciados con transformación para usos académicos, indicándose en todo caso la autoría y fuente, pudiendo para ello remitir al correspondiente enlace URL de Internet. Licencia Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0).
Las revistas alojadas en la plataforma de Open Journal Systems de la Universidad de Sevilla, en el dominio revistascientificas.us.es. Con el fin de asegurar un archivo seguro y permanente para la revista, la Universidad de Sevilla realiza una copia de seguridad cada 24 horas. Ello permite a todas las revistas electrónicas de la Universidad de Sevilla archivar y conservar sus contenidos, preservándolos de cualquier eventualidad. Si el contenido de alguna revista se pierde o se corrompe puntualmente, la Universidad de Sevilla acude a sus copias de seguridad diarias para recuperarlos.
