Publication ethics and anti-plagiarism policy

The Revistade EstudiosAndaluces takes the Code of Ethics and Good Practice as its benchmark. For the editors of scientific journals, this establishes Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) (https://publicationethics.org/core-practices). In compliance with these good practices, the journal will ensure the scientific quality of the publications and the suitable response to the needs of readers and authors.

Standards and Best Practice Guidelines for Authors.

Originality. Authors of manuscripts submitted to the Revista de Estudios Andaluces declare that the contribution is original and must demonstrate the veracity of the data. Likewise, the authors guarantee the authorship and originality of the paper, and assume full and exclusive responsibility for any damages that may arise as a result of claims by third parties regarding the content, authorship or ownership of the content of the paper.

Plagiarism. The authors declare that there are no bad practices such as plagiarism and/or duplication of content with other publications of their own. The sources and citations of texts that are not their own included in the manuscript must be correctly included.

Repetitive publications. Authors must not publish the same results in other journals.  Nor should they submit the same manuscript to other journal/s simultaneously.

Authorship and contribution. Authors guarantee the inclusion of all those who have participated in the scientific contribution.  Likewise, for papers with multiple authorship, the authors will indicate the tasks carried out by each of them. This statement will be made in comments to the editor in the journal's OJS platform, and will not be included in the submission file in order to guarantee anonymity in the editorial process. Each author's contribution will be published once the blind peer review process has been guaranteed.

All authors signing the manuscript must be registered in order of signature on the platform. Once a manuscript has been accepted for publication, the waiver of paper authorship is will not be allowed. Nor will the registration of a new author be accepted, except in exceptional cases with prior written justification and the signed agreement of the other authors.

Responsible declaration and conflict of interest. All authors must communicate in the OJS platform any existing or potential conflict of interest in relation to the publication of their article.

Funding.  Authors must indicate whether the manuscript derives from a research project and/or has external funding.

Errors in published papers.  If authors identify an error in their published article they must communicate it to the editors in order to make and publish the corrections in the appropriate part and in the appropriate terms, following the editorial rules of the journal.

Standards and Best Practice Guidelines for reviewers.

Editorial decision support.  Blind peer review assists editors in making the editorial decision on the publication of manuscripts received. Reviewers must take responsibility for an objective and constructive review of both scientific and formal quality (according to the journal's standards). The reviewers will make a reasoned report of their assessments, and annotations if they consider it appropriate, following the instructions for reviewers.

Plagiarism. If you suspect plagiarism, fraud or if you observe any other ethical issue, report it to the editor and provide as much detail as possible.

Citations from reviewers' research. Any suggestions you make for the author to include citations to your (or your associates') research should be for scientific reasons and not with the intention of increasing the citation count or improving the visibility of your (or your associates') research.

Review times. Reviewers undertake to carry out the review within the established time. If the reviewer considers that he/she is not a specialist in the subject matter of the assigned manuscript, he/she may decline to conduct the review.

Privacy.  The review must be confidential. You must treat the application, the manuscript and your review as confidential. You must not share your review or information about the review process with anyone without the consent of the editors and authors involved, even after publication. This also applies to "comments to the author" from other reviewers that are shared with you in the decision (and vice versa).

Conflict of interest.  Reviewers should not agree to review a manuscript if there is a conflict of interest. 

Standards and Guidelines for good practice for publishers.

Plagiarism.  The editors of the journal will ensure that there are no bad practices (plagiarism, duplicity...) by means of the anti-plagiarism software: Turnitin. In this way, papers that do not comply with these ethical rules will be rejected.

Training of reviewers. The editors will ensure the selection of reviewers qualified in the scientific area related to the manuscript received.  In the first instance, two reviewers will be selected. If there are significant discrepancies between the assessments of these two reviewers, a third reviewer will be selected to ensure greater objectivity in the review process.

Confidentiality. Editors will not disclose information about manuscripts in the editorial process to anyone other than the authors, editors or reviewers themselves. Editors must ensure the confidentiality and anonymity of the entire review process. Once the paper has been published, the list of reviewers will be made public with their prior authorisation.

Conflict of interest.  Editors must take into account conflict of interest in the selection of reviewers. Reviewers must not belong or have belonged to the same research team as the authors, be or have been the director of a doctoral thesis, have or have had a family relationship, friendship or enmity, have an employment relationship in the same centre or department, or any other circumstance not included among the above that could compromise the impartiality of the review of the article.

Errors in publication.   The journal undertakes to correct and rectify any errors detected by users, after analysis by the editorial committee. This correction will be published in the most appropriate format and in accordance with the journal's editorial standards.

Timing of the editorial process. The editors will monitor the times stipulated for the entire editorial process: 15 days for acknowledgement of receipt to the authors; 15 days for editorial review and response to the authors on rejection or sending for external anonymous review; 30 days for external review; and 15 days for the editorial decision after the first round of review. The process may be extended by a further 60 days if a second external review is required.  The Editorial Board will decide on publication, within a period not exceeding six months, and will communicate the reasoned editorial decision to the author.

Accepted papers will be published in order of submission, author review and editorial decision. We will aim to publish in the current issue or in the next issue if there is no time for publication. The editors will communicate the publication deadline, if it is longer than 6 months, to the authors with accepted papers belonging to the same publishing institution (University of Seville) in the case of endogamy in the issue to be published (less than 20% of the published papers).