Code of Conduct of the journal Cinta de Moebio
The journal Cinta de Moebio subscribes the code of conduct for editors of COPE (Committee on Publications Ethics).
1. General duties and responsibilities. The editor is the person accountable for every article published in the journal. The editor shall strive to meet the needs of readers and authors; constantly improve the journal; ensure the quality of the material they publish; champion freedom of expression; maintain the integrity of the academic record; always be willing to publish corrections, clarifications, retractions and apologies when needed.
2. Relations with readers. Readers should be informed about who has funded research and on the role of the funders in the research.
3. Relations with authors. Editors’ decisions to accept or reject a paper for publication should be based only on the paper’s importance, originality, and clarity, and the study’s relevance to the remit of the journal. A description of peer review processes should be published, and the Editors should be ready to justify any important deviation from the described processes. Journals should have a declared mechanism for authors to appeal against Editorial decisions. Editors should publish guidance to authors on everything that is expected of them. This guidance should be regularly updated and should refer or link to this code. Editors should not reverse decisions to accept submissions unless serious problems are identified with the submission.
4. Relations with reviewers. Editors should publish guidance to reviewers on everything that is expected of them. This guidance should be regularly updated and should refer or link to this code. Editors should have systems to ensure that peer reviewers’ identities are protected.
5. The peer-review process. Editors should have systems to ensure that material submitted to their journal remains confidential while under review.
6. Complaints. Editors should follow the procedure set out in the COPE flowchart. Editors should respond promptly to complaints and should ensure there is a way for dissatisfied complainants to take complaints further. Cinta de Moebio mechanism is the following: Send an email to the editor. If the situation cannot be resolved, it will pass on to the Ethic Committee of the Social Science Faculty at University of Chile (http://uchile.cl/s107053).
7. Encouraging debate. Cogent criticisms of published work should be published unless Editors have convincing reasons why they cannot be. Authors of criticised material should be given the opportunity to respond.
8. Encouraging academic integrity. Editors should ensure that research material they publish conforms to internationally accepted ethical guidelines. Editors should seek assurances that all research has been approved by an appropriate body (e.g. research ethics committee, institutional review board). However, Editors should recognise that such approval does not guarantee that the research is ethical.
9. Protecting individual data. Editors should protect the confidentiality of individual information.
10. Pursuing misconduct. Editors have a duty to act if they suspect misconduct. This duty extends to both published and unpublished papers. Editors should not simply reject papers that raise concerns about possible misconduct. They are ethically obliged to pursue alleged cases. Editors should first seek a response from those accused. If they are not satisfied with the response, they should ask the relevant employers or some appropriate body (perhaps a regulatory body) to investigate. Editors should follow the COPE flowcharts where applicable. Editors should make all reasonable efforts to ensure that a proper investigation is conducted; if this does not happen, Editors should make all reasonable attempts to persist in obtaining a resolution to the problem. This is an onerous but important duty.
11. Ensuring the integrity of the academic record. Whenever it is recognised that a significant inaccuracy, misleading statement or distorted report has been published, it must be corrected promptly and with due prominence. If, after an appropriate investigation, an item proves to be fraudulent, it should be retracted. The retraction should be clearly identifiable to readers and indexing systems.
12. Relations with journal owners and publishers. The relationship of Editors to publishers and owners is often complex but should in each case be based firmly on the principle of Editorial independence. Notwithstanding the economic and political realities of their journals, Editors should make decisions on which articles to publish based on quality and suitability for readers rather than for immediate financial or political gain.
13. Conflict of interest. Editors should have systems for managing their own conflicts of interest as well as those of their staff, authors, reviewers and Editorial board members.
|Home | Index | Author guidelines|
|Cinta de Moebio
Social Science Epistemology Journal