Code of Editorial Ethics

AUTHOR

EDITOR

ARBITRATOR

Before the review

Professional responsibility

·  If an author has benefited from the review of their article through the double-blind arbitration process, they should consider becoming an arbitrator.

·   Match reviewers to the content scope in a manuscript for the best possible reviews.

·   Provide all relevant and necessary information for the correct academic evaluation to be carried out:

a)       Full article in strict anonymity

b)      Review form

c)       Policies and guidelines of the journal

· Potential reviewers must provide sufficient information from their experience (personal and professional) that is accurate and fair, including contact information.

· It is important to recognize that impersonation of another person during the review process is considered serious misconduct.

· When asked to arbitrate, agree to review only if you have the experience to evaluate the manuscript and can be impartial in your evaluation.

· Conclude the review process once the manuscript has been accepted for further opinion.

· Accept the confidentiality policy and aspects to avoid conflicts of interest, according to REMEF.

Conflict of interest

· Comply with the signature of the Letter of Authorship, Copyright Transfer, and Declaration of Originality.

·   Explicitly and in detail disclose the position of the journal on conflicts of interest

·   Provide authors, readers, and reviewers with the necessary tools to avoid or resolve conflicts of interest.

·  Be sure to declare all potential conflicting interests.

·  Conflicting interests can be personal, financial, intellectual, professional, political, or religious in nature.

·  If you currently work at the same institution as any of the authors or have been recent mentors (e.g., in the last 3 years), apprentices, close associates, or grant recipients, you should not agree to review.

Punctuality

·   Authors should respond and heed the comments made by the Editorial Committee and arbitrators in a timely manner.

·   The Editor agrees to communicate with authors and arbitrators within short periods of time to follow the process.

·  Must respond to the request made by the journal, even if the arbitrator cannot agree to conduct the academic evaluation of the manuscript.

·  When the arbitrator agrees to conduct the academic evaluation, they must finish the review of the manuscript within the time established by the policies and guidelines of the journal.

·  Must always immediately report if circumstances change and they are unable to comply with the original agreement or if they need a time extension.

·  If the arbitrator is unable to carry out the review, please suggest alternative reviewers, based on experience and without any influence of personal considerations or intent on manuscript.

During the review

Start

·   Keep an eye on relevant communication with authors and reviewers, providing tools consistent with journal policies and guidelines.

·  Read the manuscript, supplemental data files, and ancillary materials in depth (e.g., instructions of the reviewer, ethical statements, and required policies), returning to the journal if everything is unclear and requesting the missing or incomplete items needed. Do not contact authors directly without journal permission.

·  Maintain direct communication with the Editor who attends for clarifications, questions or support you consider.

Confidentiality

· Guarantee that the data provided by the author are used in strict confidentiality.

·  Respect the confidentiality of the peer review process and refrain from using information for own or others advantage, or to disadvantage or discredit others.

·  Do not involve anyone else in the review of a manuscript without first obtaining permission from the journal.

·  The names of any person who has aided or assisted in the review should be recognized and the Editor should give due recognition for their efforts.

Bias and conflict of interest

·   Guarantee the inclusion, equity, and timeliness of the editorial and academic review of all manuscripts received by the journal

·    It is important to remain impartial because of considerations of nationality, religious or political beliefs, gender or other characteristics of the authors, origins of a manuscript, or commercial considerations.

·    In the event that the reviewer finds that there is an interest that might prevent them from providing an impartial review, they must notify the journal and seek advice.

·    Avoid bias in the academic evaluation of the manuscript, if the results evaluated offer a different approach to the scientific results obtained by the reviewer in similar research.

Suspicion of breach of ethics

·   Execute the sanctions established in the policy and guidelines of the journal in the event of ethical non-compliance.

·    If there is suspicion of any irregularities with respect to the research and ethics of the publication, notify the journal immediately.

Transfer of peer reviewers

·   The journal must ask the arbitrator for permission to share their data with another journal.

·    If an article is rejected and submitted to another journal, the arbitrator should consider carrying out the arbitration, taking into account that it may have undergone changes and that editorial policies differ from journal to journal.

Preparation of the report

Format

·   Provide the formats, platforms, and tools for the arbitrator to generate the report.

·    Follow the instructions of the journal to issue the arbitration in the formats, platforms, and tools provided.

·    Be objective and constructive in the observations made by providing feedback that will help the authors improve their manuscript. For example, be specific in the critique, and provide supporting evidence with appropriate references to corroborate general statements.

Proper feedback

·   Acknowledge the report received, in case of indications of modifications make the suggested changes and deliver the manuscript back to the editor in the time indicated in the policies of the journal.

·   The journal will issue a report with the observations suggested by both arbitrators for the author to consider.

·   The final decision, as a result of the academic evaluation process, will be reported at the appropriate time to the author.

·    Keep in mind that the evaluation must be fair, honest, and impartial of the strengths and weaknesses of the manuscript. Most journals allow reviewers to provide confidential comments to the editor, as well as comments to be read by the authors.

·    The journal may also request a recommendation to accept/review/reject; any recommendation must be consistent with the comments provided in the review. If the entire manuscript has not been reviewed, indicate those aspects of the manuscript.

Language and style

·  The language and style are the responsibility of the author. In all cases it must be clear, concise, direct, coherent, and based on the scientific argument.

·   The editor will employ an inclusive, argumentative, clear, and objective language with authors and reviewers.

·    Arbitrators should not rewrite the document in their own style, but they can make important suggestions for improving the clarity of the document.

·    In linguistic matters, bear in mind that some authors do not write in their native language, write the observations in an appropriate manner and with respect.

Suggestions for additional work

·    It is the task of the reviewer to comment on the quality and rigor of the work they receive. If the work is not clear due to missing analyses, the reviewer should comment and explain what additional analyses would clarify the work presented. It is not the task of the reviewer to extend the work beyond its current scope.

Responsibility

·      Guarantee strict anonymity throughout the process, as well as the quality of the report that will be delivered to the author, considering the ethical aspects of interest for scientific communication and which are detailed in the policy of the journal.

·    The arbitrator must prepare the report by themselves, unless they have permission from the journal to involve another person.

·    Refrain from making unfair negative comments or including unjustified criticism of the work of any competitor mentioned in the manuscript.

·    Refrain from suggesting that authors include citations to their work (or that of an associate) merely to increase citation counts or to improve the visibility of their work or that of their associate; suggestions should be based on valid academic or technological reasons.

What to consider after arbitration?

·  Try to manage the information and submission data to the journals where the article was submitted or resubmitted.

·  When contacting the journal, please respond promptly on issues related to the review of your article.

·  Inform the journal of any changes made.

·      Present statistics of the review process.

·      Acknowledge the work of the reviewers.

·      Ensure that the forms provided by the journal for review are objective and assist the reviewer in the evaluation process.

·  Continue respecting the confidentiality of the review process and do not disclose the details of the manuscript after peer review unless the author, the journal, and/or the arbitrator has given permission, as the case may be.