Publication ethics policy

Inserts maintain ethical codes for reviewers, authors and editors based on the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) codes, available at https://publicationethics.org/.

Editorial decisions will not be affected by the origin of the manuscript or by characteristics of the authors such as nationality, gender, sexual orientation, ethnic origin, race, religious beliefs or political philosophy of the authors.

The decision to publish an article is independent of governmental policies or other agencies external to the journal.

Editors' responsibilities

1. They should take responsibility for what is published in their journal. They should look for ways to improve the journal, attend to the needs and questions of the authors, prevent other non-academic needs from compromising the ethical standards of the journal, be willing to publish corrections, clarifications, rectifications and apologies, if necessary.
2. They will keep accessible the description of the evaluation process and the guide of procedures to submit an article for evaluation.
3. They will ensure the confidentiality of the authors of the manuscripts from the time they are received until the end of their evaluation.
4. They will protect the intellectual property and copyright of the manuscripts.
5. They will use appropriate tools, such as anti-plagiarism software, e.g. Turnitin, to detect scientific misconduct by authors.
6. They will ask the evaluators to comment on the authors' misconduct.
7. They will inform the author of the progress of the evaluation.
8. They will send the authors the evaluators' comments in their entirety, except when they are offensive or defamatory.
9. They will inform the author of the stage of the editorial process in which the article is.
10. They will not use or disclose information from the articles before they are published, without prior consent from the author.

Responsibilities of the members of the Editorial Coordination Team

1. The decision to accept or reject an article will be based on its quality, clarity, originality and relevance for publication in the journal.
2. The members of the Committee will establish the editorial parameters and revise them frequently so that the journal maintains its quality.
3. New members of the Editorial Committee cannot reverse publication decisions made prior to their appointment, unless the manuscript in question presents serious problems.
4. They will not reveal the identity of the authors until the articles are published.
5. The names of the evaluators will be kept anonymous.
6. They will ensure that manuscripts are reviewed by appropriate reviewers.
7. Ensure that the evaluation process is objective, clear and transparent.
8. They will resolve any disputes that arise during the evaluation process.
9. They will publish corrections, clarifications, rectifications and apologies, if necessary.
10. If they detect scientific misconduct by authors, they will immediately inform the editors.
11. Publish how they have resolved disputes or cases of authors who do not comply with the provisions of this code of conduct.

Authors' responsibilities

1. Authors must ensure that:

His manuscript has not been published and it is not being evaluated in other publications.

The information contained in the manuscript has been collected in an ethical manner.

The article presented is original and that the references and data of other works have been cited appropriately.

2. They will recognize as co-authors those who have participated significantly in the content of the article.
3. They will give credit to the translators of all or parts of the article.
4. They will state in the manuscript the sources of financial support for the research.
5. They will follow the guidelines for submitting articles, published on the journal's website and defined by the Editorial Committee.
6. They will follow the indications of the phases of the evaluation and will observe the deadlines for corrections and comparisons.
7. They must ensure that they have in their possession the authorizations to reproduce and print the material that is not their property or authorship (graphs, maps, diagrams, photographs, etc.).
8. They will sign a letter authorizing the journal to edit, publish and distribute their article in print and electronic media.

Evaluators' responsibilities

1. If the manuscript they have been asked to evaluate is subject to a conflict of interest, they will declare it immediately.
2. They will inform the editor if they feel they are not qualified to perform the evaluation.
3. They will inform the editors if they detect scientific misconduct in the manuscript.
4. They will express their comments in a clear, objective and respectful manner in the evaluation format provided by the journal.
5. They will conduct the evaluation and notify the result within 30 calendar days.
6. They will treat the result of the evaluation with confidentiality.
7. They will not use or disclose the information contained in the manuscript prior to publication.

Scientific bad practices are considered:

Lack of ethics in the publication process

- Fictitious authorship: appearing as authors or co-authors of research that has not been carried out.

- Duplicate publication: publishing all or part of an already published article.

- Fragmented publication: dividing a work to publish as independent articles.

- Inflated publication: adding data to a previously published paper for publication as a new article.

- Self-plagiarism: repeating the same content previously written by the author with the intention of publishing it as a new article.

Scientific fraud

- Invention: to elaborate all or part of the data.

- Falsification and manipulation of data: falsifying data or methods to meet the hypothesis.

- Plagiarism: taking ideas or phrases without citing the original source.

Incorrect bibliographic citations: omit relevant citations. Include non-consulted citations. Excess of self-citations.

- Publication bias: forcing data to obtain positive results and high statistical significance.

- Publicity: premature (unverified) results.

Process for identifying and addressing allegations of research misconduct

In the event that misconduct is detected, the sanction or resolution will be guided by the codes of conduct. COPE flow charts.

Manuscripts that incur these practices will not be evaluated. The editor will write to the author, explaining that the article is rejected, the journal's position in these cases and the expected behavior in the future. It will also inform the evaluator.

If it is detected that sentences of less length were copied and there is no indication that the data of others has been offered as their own work, the publisher will write to the author and request that he modify those parts or that he indicate the citations clearly. It will also inform the evaluator. If the author refuses to correct the manuscript, the article will be rejected, the journal's position in these cases and the expected behavior in the future will be explained.

The Encartes journal adheres to the ethical production of knowledge. It is open to receive complaints of misconduct in research, plagiarism, manipulation of quotations and fabrication of data, among others. The denunciation will be received by the editor and will be turned to the Editorial Team that will appoint a commission to make an exhaustive investigation and verify the denunciation. In case of plagiarism, it will be ruled under the Mexican legal system. The results of such opinion will be informed to both the plaintiff and the defendant. In the event that the accusation proceeds, the necessary measures will be taken to sanction or amend the fault. In the event that the Team decides that it does not proceed, the plaintiff will also be notified within a maximum period of one month. In the event that the editor(s) of Encartes becomes aware of any allegation of research misconduct related to an article published in its journal, the publisher will follow the guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics-COPE (or equivalent) in dealing with the allegations.