» Ethical statement on publication and good practices
The editorial team of the RUNAS is committed to the scientific community to guarantee the ethics and quality of the published articles. The publication takes as a reference the Best Practice Guidelines on Publishing Ethics of Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) defines for editors of scientific journals.
In compliance with these good practices, the articles are evaluated by anonymous external peers with criteria based exclusively on the scientific relevance, originality, clarity, and relevance of the texts presented by their authors. The confidentiality of the evaluation process and the anonymity of the evaluators and authors, the evaluated content, the reasoned report issued by the evaluators, and any other communication issued by the Editorial and Arbitration Council are guaranteed at all times.
Likewise, confidentiality will be maintained in the event of possible complaints, claims, or clarifications that the authors wish to make to the editorial team or to the anonymous reviewers.
Ethical Obligations of the editors
- An editor must give impartial consideration to all manuscripts offered for publication, judging each by their merits without distinction of race, religion, nationality, sex, seniority or institutional affiliation of the author (s). However, an editor can take into account the relationships of a manuscript immediately under consideration with others previously or at the same time offered by the same author (s).
2. An editor must consider the submitted manuscripts for publication with all reasonable speed.
3. The sole responsibility of accepting or rejecting a manuscript rests with the editor. The responsible and prudent exercise of this duty normally requires the editor to seek the advice of the reviewers, chosen for their experience and good judgment, regarding the quality and reliability of the manuscripts sent for publication. Publishers should communicate openly with the authors and not provide comments under the guise of an anonymous review. However, manuscripts may be rejected without external review if the editors consider them inappropriate for the journal. Such rejections may be based on the fact that the manuscript does not conform to the scope of the journal, which is of current or sufficiently broad interest, which provides an adequate depth of content, which is written in an acceptable language (Spanish, Portuguese or English) or other reasons.
4. The publisher and staff members of the publisher should not disclose any information about a manuscript that is being considered by anyone other than those for whom professional advice is sought. (However, an editor requesting, or organizing in advance, the submission of manuscripts may need to reveal to a potential author that a relevant manuscript of another author has been received or is in preparation). After making a decision on a manuscript, the publisher and the publisher's personnel may disclose or publish the manuscript titles and the names of the authors of the works that have been accepted for publication, but no more than that unless obtained the permission of the author. If a decision has been made to reject a manuscript for ethical violations, the editor and the editor's staff may disclose the title of the manuscript and the names of the authors to other editors of the ACS publications.
5. An editor must respect the intellectual independence of the authors.
6. The editorial responsibility and authority for any manuscript written by an editor of RUNAS journal and sent to this journal must be delegated to another qualified person, such as another editor of that journal or a member of its Editorial Advisory Board. Editors should also delegate to other qualified manuscripts sent by recent graduates (at least during the previous 5 years), by collaborators or by colleagues from the same institution. The editorial consideration of such manuscripts in any way or form would constitute a conflict of interest and, therefore, is inadmissible.
7. Unpublished information, arguments, or interpretations disclosed in a submitted manuscript should not be used in an editor's research, except with the author's consent. However, if such information indicates that it is unlikely that some of the publisher's research will be profitable, the editor could ethically suspend the work. When a manuscript is so closely related to the current or past research of an editor as to create a conflict of interest, the editor must make the necessary arrangements for another qualified person to take editorial responsibility for that manuscript. In some cases, it may be appropriate to tell an author about the research and the publisher's plans in that area.
8. If an editor receives convincing evidence that the main substance or conclusions of a report published in a publisher's journal are erroneous, the editor should facilitate the publication of an appropriate report pointing to the error and, if possible, correct the report can be written by the person who discovered the error or by an original author.
9. An author may request that the editor not use certain reviewers in consideration of a manuscript. However, the editor may decide to use one or more of these reviewers, if the editor considers that their opinions are important in the fair consideration of a manuscript. This could be the case, for example, when a manuscript does not agree with the previous work of a possible reviewer.
Ethical Obligations of the Authors
The authors are expected to adhere to the following ethical guidelines; infractions may result in the application of sanctions by the publisher (s), which include, among others, the suspension or revocation of publishing privileges.
- The central obligation of an author is to present a precise and complete description of the research carried out, absolutely avoiding deception, including the data collected or used, as well as an objective discussion of the importance of the research. The data is defined as the information collected or used to generate research conclusions. The research report and the data collected should contain sufficient details and references to public sources of information to allow a trained professional to reproduce the experimental observations.
- An author should cite those publications that have been influential to determine the nature of the work reported and that will quickly guide the reader to the previous work that is essential to understand the present investigation. Except in a review, the appointment of the work that will not be mentioned in the research reported should be minimized. An author is obliged to perform a bibliographic search to find, and then quote, the original publications that describe the closely related work. For critical materials used in the work, an appropriate quotation should also be made to the sources when they were supplied by a non-author.
- Fragmentation of research reports should be avoided. An author who has done extensive work in a system or group of related systems should organize the publication so that each report provides a complete explanation of a particular aspect of the general study. Fragmentation consumes too much space in the journal and complicates bibliographic searches excessively.
- When submitting a manuscript for publication, an author must inform the editor of the related manuscripts that the author has under editorial or press consideration. Copies of these manuscripts must be submitted to the editor, and the relationships of such manuscripts with the manuscript must be indicated.
- It is inappropriate for an author to send manuscripts describing essentially the same research to more than one journal of primary publication unless it is a re-submission of a manuscript rejected or withdrawn from the publication.
- An author must identify the source of all the information used, except that which is common knowledge. Information obtained privately, such as conversations, correspondence, or discussions with third parties, should not be used or reported in the author's work without the explicit permission of the researcher with whom the information originated. Information obtained in the course of confidential services, such as arbitration manuscripts or grant applications, should be treated in a similar manner.
- Plagiarism is not acceptable in the Runas journal. The publications adhere to the definition of plagiarism of the National Science Foundation of the USA. As "the appropriation of ideas, processes, results or words of another person without giving the appropriate credit" (45 Code of Federal Regulations, Section 689.1). Authors should not be involved in plagiarism: textual or quasi-textual copy, or very close paraphrase, of the text or results of another person's work. Authors should not engage in self-plagiarism (also known as duplicate publication): an unacceptably close replication of the text or results previously published by the author without acknowledgment of the source.
Ethical Obligations of the Manuscript Reviewers
- To the extent that the revision of the manuscripts is an essential step in the publication process, and therefore in the operation of the scientific method, each scientist has the obligation to do a fair part of the review.
- An elected reviewer who feels inadequately qualified to judge the research reported in a manuscript should immediately return it to the editor.
- A reviewer (or arbitrator) of a manuscript must objectively judge the quality of the entire manuscript and the supporting information, taking due account of the maintenance of scientific and literary standards. A reviewer must respect the intellectual independence of the authors.
- A reviewer should be sensitive to the appearance of a conflict of interest when the manuscript under review is closely related to the work of the reviewer in progress or published. In case of doubt, the reviewer should return the manuscript quickly without review, notifying the editor of the conflict of interest or bias. Alternatively, the reviewer may wish to provide a signed review indicating the interest of the reviewer in the work, on the understanding that it may, at the discretion of the editor, be transmitted to the author.
- A reviewer should not evaluate a manuscript written or co-authored by a person with whom the reviewer has a personal or professional connection if the relationship would bias the judgment of the manuscript.
- The confidentiality and anonymity of the external reviewers are expectations throughout the editorial review process in order to allow a sincere discussion and evaluation regarding the scientific content presented.
Confidentiality of the manuscript: a reviewer must treat both the submitted manuscript and the data received from the journal and its report of arbitrators and related correspondence as confidential documents. These documents should not be disclosed or discussed with others, except, in special cases, when they are confidentially shared with people who can be called upon to obtain specific advice. In such cases, the identities of those to be consulted must be revealed to the editor in advance.
Confidentiality of the reviewer and the review: Under no circumstances should the reviewer identify himself as the reviewer of a specific manuscript. In addition, the reviewer can not disclose the content of the review sent to any individual or organization. This expectation of confidentiality and anonymity of the peer review extends beyond publication or rejection of the submitted manuscript.
- Reviewers should explain and support their judgments in an appropriate manner so that editors and authors can understand the basis of their comments.
- A reviewer should draw the editor's attention to any substantial similarity between the manuscript under consideration and any published document or any manuscript submitted concurrently to another journal.
- A reviewer must act promptly and send a report in a timely manner. In the event that a reviewer receives a manuscript at a time when circumstances preclude its immediate attention, the non-revised manuscript should be returned immediately to the editor. Alternatively, the reviewer can notify the editor of probable delays and propose a new review date.