Code of Ethics

Code of Ethics

Arboles y Rizomas is governed by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) ethical standards for publication that are described on the COPE’s webpage, which includes guidelines such as COPE, Ethical Guidelines for Peer-reviewers; COPE, A Short Guide to Ethical Editing for New Editors; COPE Guidelines on Good Publication Practice. These documents establish a series of ethical guidelines for authors, reviewers, and editors that are described below.

Ethical Guidelines for Authors

Following the COPE guidelines mentioned above, authors interested in sending their manuscript to Arboles y Rizomas are required to:

  1. Submit original work that has not been published before and ensure that it is not “redundant” work, ie, articles known as “salami publications” (see definitions below). When detected during the submission process, such work will be rejected. Manuscripts should evidence clarity in their writing and authors should submit them to style editing before submission.
  2. Let the Editor know if there are similar versions of the manuscript that have been published or were submitted elsewhere.
  3. Only the actual authors of the study should be included, that is, people who have contributed with significant intellectual work to the study.
  4. Do not credit with authorship individuals who have not made a substantial contribution to the article, these authors are known as “ghost”, “gift”, or “guests” authors.
  5. Come to an agreement about authorship in a joint decision between the co-authors, considering that the first author is usually the one who made the most significant contribution to the article.
  6. Make sure that there is no plagiarism and that all external contributions are appropriately cited following the style required by the journal.
  7. Understand that when submitting their manuscript to Arboles y Rizomas, they consent that it can be examined for plagiarism through a similarity checking system called Crosscheck which indicates degrees of coincidence with already published work.
  8. Not more than 10% of the total number of citations in the manuscript can be used for self-citation.
  9. Make sure that the identity of the participants in the study is not disclosed and kept anonymous and confidential.
  10. Avoid defamation, conflict of interest, or fraud.
  11. Communication with the editor should be respectful and professional.
  12. Do not submit other manuscripts to the journal until an editorial decision is received with respect to the first submission.

Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers 

Following the guidelines established by COPE, peer reviewers, in general terms, must:

  1. Based on their experience, support the Editor in the process of evaluation and selection of the articles for the journal.
  2. Make sure that the reviewing process is kept confidential and not use the information from reviewing for personal or professional purposes.
  3. Not use the content of the manuscripts for purposes other than evaluation.
  4. Submit reports on a prompt, accurate, courteous, impartial and justifiable basis.
  5. Let the Editor know if the manuscript shares similar characteristics with another one already reviewed or that has been published elsewhere.
  6. Make anonymous comments and notify the editor if unable to keep the review anonymous.
  7. Inform the Editor if the review cannot be submitted by the proposed deadline. Not accept a review if not enough time available or the topic is not in their area of specialization.
  8. Propose or recommend evaluators when they consider they cannot comply with the requested activities.
  9. Refrain from issuing opinions in favor or in rejection of the publication of a manuscript based on their own beliefs or convictions.
  10. Use academic, appropriate and cordial language when preparing the evaluation report.
  11. Maintain an impartial, academic and objective position throughout the evaluation process.
  12. Avoid making direct comments to the author or authors of the manuscript.
  13. Use academic language that is appropriate and supported by bibliographic references to make comments or give recommendations.
  14. Refrain from evaluating manuscripts written by authors with whom they have friendly or professional relationships.
  15. Refrain from making public, in any way, data or information contained in the manuscript.
  16. Request authorization from the Editor when it is necessary to include the opinion or recommendations of another specialist in the evaluation.

Ethical Guidelines for Editors 

Following the guidelines established by COPE, the editors of Arboles y Rizomas are asked to:

  1. Follow practices of equity, respect and plurality in the manuscript evaluation processes.
  2. Accept or reject manuscripts under the principles of originality and contribution to knowledge.
  3. Do not favor or grant privilege to manuscripts under practices of friendship with the authors or personal benefit.
  4. Favor plurality of opinion and diverse study perspectives that are well-founded and promote academic debate.
  5. Do not exclude manuscripts that have received unfavorable evaluations.
  6. Ensure that the manuscript evaluation process is adequate, transparent and unbiased.
  7. Admit responsibility when a work has been published without sufficient merits.
  8. Encourage proper authorship credit and discourage the use of guest or ghost authors.
  9. Use platforms that protect the authors’ and evaluators’ confidentiality and anonymity throughout the evaluation process, so as to ethically protect the research that has already been published.
  10. Be courteous and polite when reporting that a manuscript has not been accepted in the journal, explaining in a clear and respectful manner the reasons for that decision.
  11. Maintain contact, at all times, with both the authors and the evaluators, avoiding unethical practices. In the event that these practices are suspected, always allow the authors the right to explain and clarify.
  12. When editors suspect that a manuscript has been published or plagiarized, and have enough evidence, contact the editor who evaluated and accepted it.
  13. Allow the publication of modifications or acceptance of responsibilities when needed.

Important Definitions

The following list of definitions may be helpful in understanding ethical standards in publication.

Author or authors: The person or persons that are responsible for having actively contributed in drafting, writing and editing the manuscript and ensuring the accuracy and originality of the study.

Conflict of Interest: It arises when the author or authors hold financial, professional, personal or work relations with the members of the editorial staff or evaluators.

Defamation: It arises when the language in submitted manuscripts and peer review reports contains negligent misstatements.

Fraud: It occurs when the author or authors deliberately manipulate data in a published article. This leads to falsification or fabrication of new results.

Plagiarism: According to the Oxford Online  Dictionary, it implies “presenting someone else's work or ideas as your own, with or without their consent, by incorporating it into your work without full acknowledgement”.

Types of plagiarism: The literature on publications mentions at least 5 types of plagiarism:

  • Literal: Reproducing a work word for word, in whole or in part, without permission and acknowledgment of the original source.
  • Substantial: Reproduction of research materials, processes, or tables.
  • Paraphrasing: Reproducing someone else’s ideas while not copying word for word, without permission and acknowledgment of the original source.
  • Recycling: Reproducing portions of an author’s own work in a paper, and resubmitting it for publication as an entirely new paper..
  • Self-Plagiarism: Any attempt to reuse one’s own content from previously published texts and present it as completely new. There is no citation of the original content and the reader is unaware that the content has appeared in a journal before.

Redundant, double, or multiple publication: “Redundant publication occurs when two or more papers, without full cross reference, share the same hypothesis, data, discussion points, or conclusions” (COPE- Guidelines on Good Publication Practice).   

Salami Publication: This happens when an author or authors “slice” a study into several papers that share the same hypotheses, population, methodology and results.

Simultaneous Submission: This occurs when a person submits a paper to different publications at the same time, which can result in more than one journal publishing that particular paper.