Ethical Commitment

ETHICAL COMMITMENT FOR THE PUBLICATION OF ARTICLES

The journal PHILOLOGIA HISPALENSIS (PH) is committed to guaranteeing the ethics and quality of the articles published by the academic community. Our journal uses the Code of Conduct and Best Practice for editors of scientific journals established by the COMMITTEE ON PUBLICATION ETHICS (EDITORIAL UNIVERSIDAD DE SEVILLA) as a reference. Likewise, it subscribes to the Good publication practice guidelines (Guía de buenas prácticas para la publicación), established by CSIC, which aims to produce a code of conduct for those involved in the management and publication of scientific results: Editorial Boards, authors and reviewers of papers.

Thus, our journal guarantees an appropriate response to the needs of readers and authors, ensuring the quality of the publications, and protecting and respecting the content of the articles and their integrity. 

1. EDITORIAL BOARD

The Editorial Board of PHILOLOGIA HISPALENSIS is responsible for the content published in the journal, so it must ensure their scientific standards, avoid bad practices in the publication of research results and manage the editing of the papers received in a timely manner.

This responsibility entails the following principles:

1.1. Impartiality

The Editorial Board must be impartial in the treatment of papers proposed for publication, respect the authors’ intellectual independence, and recognise authors’ right to a response in case their work receives a negative evaluation.

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 contents until they have been accepted for publication.  Only then may their title and authorship be disclosed.

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of an Editorial Board or person involved in the review process may use data, lines of reasoning or interpretations in unpublished manuscripts for his or her own research, except with the authors’ express written consent.

Our journal guarantees the confidentiality of the review process at all times: the anonymity of the evaluators and authors; the content reviewed; the reasoned report issued by the reviewers; and any other communication issued by the editorial, advisory and scientific boards if applicable.

Likewise, any clarifications, complaints or claims that an author may wish to submit to the journal’s committees or to the article’s reviewers shall be treated with the utmost confidentiality.

1.3. Refereeing system

In compliance with these best practices, PH has published its review system for selecting articles, as well as the evaluation criteria to be applied by external reviewers—anonymous and peer reviewers- who are not members of the Editorial Board, to the Institution and to the authors. The criteria are based exclusively on the scientific relevance of the article, originality, clarity and relevance of the work presented. PH keeps these criteria updated.

EXTERNAL PEER REVIEW AND ANONYMOUS EVALUATION

Once the journal’s Editorial Board has verified that the article complies with the rules regarding style and content indicated in the guidelines for authors and in the Ethical Commitment document, it will send the article to two anonymous expert reviewers who are not members of the Editorial Board, to the Institution and to the authors. This is done according to the double-blind process, and the experts belong to the specific field of linguistic and literary research. When one of the two evaluations is negative, a third report will be requested.

The evaluation will focus on the relevance of the article, its contribution to the knowledge of the subject, the new features introduced, the relations established, the critical judgement developed, the bibliographical references, its correct wording, etc., making suggestions, if applicable, for its possible improvement.

Based on the reviewers’ suggestions, the journal’s secretary will inform the authors of the reasoned result of the review by e-mail, at the address they used to send the article. The secretary will inform the main author of the result of the review (publication without changes; publication with corrections; not suitable for publication), as well as the reviewers’ observations and comments.

If the manuscript has been accepted with modifications, the authors must resubmit a new version of the article, considering the requests and suggestions made by the external reviewers. If they wish, the authors can also submit a letter to the Editorial Board indicating the content of the modifications made to the article. Articles with significant corrections may be sent to the Advisory Board to verify the validity of the modifications made by the author.

Depending on the degree of compliance with the requested modifications, the Advisory Board will decide whether to publish the article. The secretary of the journal will inform the author of this decision.

The Editorial Board may directly reject the works received, without resorting to an external review process, if they are deemed to be unsuitable for the journal because they lack the required quality standards, for not responding its content to a standardized structure (Introduction, Approach, Methods and Materials, Analysis or Study, Results, Discussion, Conclusions and References), because they are not in line with the scientific aims of the journal, because they do not adapt to the rules of publication or because they contain evidence of scientific fraud.

1.4. Journal article retraction and expression of concern

PH declares its commitment to respecting and upholding the integrity of previously published work. For this reason, plagiarism is strictly forbidden, and manuscripts identified as plagiarism or with fraudulent content will be removed or not published by PH. In these cases, the journal will act as quickly as possible. By accepting the terms and agreements stated by our journal, authors must guarantee that the article and materials associated with it are original or do not infringe on copyright. In the case of shared authorship, the authors must also ensure that there was full consensus of all the authors involved and that the work has not been previously submitted or published in any other medium.

Based on the above, the Editorial Board reserves the right to retract previously published works that are subsequently determined to be unreliable as a result of both unintentional error and fraud or poor scientific practice: 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 seeks 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 an article in two different journals, the date the manuscript was received will be the determining factor to solve the conflict. If only part of the article contains an error, this can be rectified later by means of a note from the editor or an erratum notice.

In case of a conflict, the journal will ask the author(s) for explanations and evidence to clarify the issue and will make a final decision based on these.

The journal reserves the right to publish, in its printed and electronic versions, the retraction notice of a given article. The reasons for such action must be mentioned in the notice, in order to distinguish bad practice from unintentional error. The journal shall also notify the responsible authorities at the authors’ institution of the retraction. The decision to retract an article should be taken as soon as possible in order to prevent the misleading article from being cited within the field of research.

Retracted articles will remain available in the electronic edition of the journal, clearly and unambiguously identified as retracted articles, to differentiate them from other corrections or comments. In the printed edition, retractions will be reported as promptly as possible by means of an editorial or notice, with the same wording used in the electronic version.

As a previous step to the final retraction, the journal may issue an expression of concern, providing the necessary information in the same wording 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.

1.5. Application of the regulations of the Editorial Board

The person who manages the Board is responsible for ensuring that the regulations governing the operation of the Board are correctly applied, and he or she must guarantee that Board members are aware of them. This includes promoting and representing the journal in different forums; suggesting and supporting possible improvements; garnering the collaboration of specialists in the field; reviewing, in an initial evaluation, the articles received; writing journal editorials, revisions, comments, news, reviews, etc.; and attending the meetings of the Editorial Board.

1.6. Rules for authors

The rules for submitting manuscripts to the journal (concerning the length of the abstract and the article, the preparation of the images, the system for bibliographic references, etc.) must be publicly available.

1.7. Conflict of interest

A conflict of interest arises when a paper received by the journal has been written by a member of the Editorial Board, by someone who has a direct personal or professional relationship with a member of the Board, or by someone closely related to previous or current research carried out by a member of the Board.  Those who are affected by any of these situations must abstain from intervening in the evaluation process of the proposed article.

2. ON THE AUTHORSHIP OF ARTICLES

The authors of works sent for publication in the journal are primarily responsible for their content, and therefore are required to follow ethical standards to ensure that the work is original, and that authorship has been attributed appropriately, among other aspects.

 2.1. Rules for publication

Works 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 their results. They must provide enough information to allow any specialist to repeat the research carried out and confirm or refute the interpretations defended in the manuscript.

Authors must adequately mention the source of the ideas or phrases taken verbatim from previously published works in the manner indicated in the journal’s rules.

When images are included 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. The authors must cite the source of any graphic material (figures, photos, maps, etc.) that has been partially reproduced in other publications, providing any necessary permissions to reproduce the material.

Unnecessary subdivision of articles should be avoided. If the work is very long, it can be published in several parts, so that each part develops a particular aspect of the overall study. To facilitate readers’ interpretation, different related works should be published in the same journal.

To obtain more information, please consult the following link https://revistascientificas.us.es/index.php/PH/directrices-para-los-autores

2.2. Originality and plagiarism

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, 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 original work submitted simultaneously to another journal for consideration, nor shall they submit said work to another journal until they are notified that it has been rejected or have voluntarily withdrawn it from consideration. However, an article that builds upon previously published work—such as a short report, a brief communication or a 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 it is aimed at 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 one is intended for the general public. These circumstances must be specified, and the original publication must be cited appropriately.

 2.3. Authorship of the works

If the article has more than one author, the author responsible for the work must ensure the proper acknowledgement of all persons who contributed significantly to the conception, planning, design and performance of the study, the obtaining of the data, and the interpretation and discussion of the results. All persons named as authors share responsibility for the work submitted. Likewise, the contact person 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 contact person 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 helps prevent ghost authorship and gift authorship, which constitute scientific misconduct.

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

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

2.4. 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 must be endorsed not only by the signature of the 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, provided they are carried out for teaching, research and non-profit purposes.

In published papers that have been carried out with research data including gender, the author is requested to report on whether the conclusions have taken into account possible gender differences.

2.5. Sources of information

The work must acknowledge all publications that have influenced the research, so all original sources upon which information in the manuscript is based should be identified and cited in the bibliography. However, references that are not relevant to the work or that refer to similar examples should not be included, and the overuse of references to research that is already established in the body of scientific knowledge should be avoided.

The author should not use information obtained privately through conversations, correspondence or informal discussions with colleagues regarding the topic at hand, unless he or she has obtained explicit written permission from the source of the information, and the information was provided in the context of a scientific consultation.

2.6. Significant errors in published works

When an author discovers a serious error in his or her work, he or she must report it to the journal as soon as possible in order to modify the article, withdraw it, retract it or publish corrections or an erratum notice.

If any member of the Editorial Team detects the potential error, the author must then prove that his or her work is free from errors.

The process used to resolve such issues is described in section 1.5.

2.7. Conflict of interest

The text of the article must be presented with a statement indicating any commercial, financial or personal link that may affect the results and the conclusions of the paper. In addition, 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

The people involved in the review process play an essential role in ensuring the quality of published material. They assist the journals’ team in making editorial decisions and help to improve the articles

3.1. Confidentiality

The reviewer must consider the work to be reviewed as a confidential document until publication, both during and after the review process.

Under no circumstances should the reviewer divulge or use any information, details, lines of reasoning or interpretations in the text to be reviewed for his or her own benefit or that of any other individuals, or with intent to harm any third parties. Only under exceptional circumstances may the reviewer obtain advice from other specialists in the area, and when doing so, the reviewer must inform the Editor of the journal.

3.2. Objectivity

The reviewer must judge the quality of the full work objectively, i.e., including the background information used to formulate the hypothesis of the study, the theoretical and experimental data and their interpretation—while also paying attention to the presentation and wording of the text.

The reviewer must be specific with his or her criticism and present comments in an objective and constructive manner. He or she must properly justify his or her judgements, without hostility and respecting the author’s intellectual independence.

The reviewer must notify the Editor of any substantial similarities between the manuscript under review and any other published work or work undergoing review for another journal (redundant or duplicate publication). In addition, reviewers must draw attention to any text or data that have been plagiarised, falsified, fabricated or manipulated.

3.3. Timely response

The reviewer must act promptly and deliver his or her report by the agreed deadline and must notify the Editor of any possible delays.

In addition, the reviewer must notify the Editor as soon as possible if he or she does not feel qualified to evaluate the manuscript or when unable to complete the task by the agreed deadline.

3.4. Acknowledgement of sources of information

The reviewer must verify that previously published work relevant to the subject has been cited. To this end, he or she will review the bibliography cited 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

A reviewer must refuse to review a paper when he or she has a professional or personal relationship with any of the individuals involved in its authorship that might affect his or her judgement of the paper.

Conflicts of interest may also arise when the work to be evaluated is closely related to work being prepared by the reviewer at that time or already published work. In these cases, when in doubt, the reviewer should decline the task assigned to him or her and return the work to the Journal, stating the reasons for the decision.

3.6. Code of Conduct

PH uses the Code of Conduct and Best Practice for editors of scientific journals established by the COMMITTEE ON PUBLICATION ETHICS (EDITORIAL UNIVERSIDAD DE SEVILLA) as a reference, and it is implemented with: