Buenas Prácticas Editoriales

STATEMENT OF ETHICS AND GOOD EDITORIAL PRACTICES
1. General Duties and Responsibilities of Editors
1.1. Editors must be responsible for everything published.
This means that editors should
1.2. Seek to meet the needs of readers and authors;
1.3. Strive to constantly improve their journal; 1.4;
1.4. Have processes in place to ensure the quality of the material they publish; 1.5;
1.5. Respect freedom of expression; 1.6;
1.6. Maintain the integrity of the scholarly record; 1.7;
1.7. Prevent business needs from compromising intellectual and ethical standards; 1.8;
1.8. Are willing to publish corrections, clarifications, retractions, and apologies when necessary.

Best practices for editors would include
- Actively seeking the opinions of authors, readers, reviewers, and editorial board members about
Improving their journal's processes
- encouraging and learning about peer review research and publishing and reevaluating your journal processes in light of new findings
- working to persuade your publisher to provide appropriate resources, expert guidance (Designers, lawyers)
- support initiatives designed to reduce research and publication misconduct
- support initiatives to educate researchers about publication ethics
- assess the effects of their journal's policies on author and reviewer behavior and revise policies, as necessary, to encourage responsible behavior and discourage misconduct
- ensure that press releases issued by your journal reflect the message of the article and put it in context.

2. Relations with readers
Readers should be informed about who has funded the research or other scholarly work and whether the funders had any role in the research and its publication and, if so, what that role was.

Best practices for editors would include:
- ensuring that all published reports and reviews of research have been reviewed by qualified personnel. Reviewers (including statistical review where appropriate)
- ensuring that non-peer-reviewed sections of your journal are clearly identified
- adopt processes that promote the accuracy, completeness and clarity of research reports, including technical editing and the use of appropriate guidelines and checklists.
- considering the development of a transparency policy to encourage maximum provenance of non-research articles
- adopting authorship or contribution systems that promote good practice (i.e., accurately reflect who did the work) and discourage misconduct (e.g., ghost and guest authors)
- informing readers of measures taken to ensure that submissions by journal or editorial staff members receive an objective and unbiased evaluation.

3. Relations with Authors
3.1. The editors' decisions to accept or reject a paper for publication should be based on the: Significance, originality and clarity, and the validity of the study and its relevance to the journal.
Editors should not overrule decisions to accept submissions unless they are identified with the submission.
3.3. New editors should not overrule decisions to publish submissions made by the previous editor unless serious problems are identified.
3.4. A description of the peer review processes should be published and editors should justify any major deviations from the processes described.
3.5. Journals should have a stated mechanism for authors to appeal editorial decisions.
3.6. Editors should publish guidance to authors on what is expected of them. The guidance should be updated periodically and should refer or link to this code.
3.7. Editors should provide guidance on authorship criteria and/or who should be following the standards within the relevant field.
Best practices for editors would include:
- regularly reviewing author instructions and providing links to relevant guidelines (e.g., ICMJE5,
Responsible Research Publishing: International Standards for Authors).
- publish competing interests relevant to all contributors, and publish corrections if competing
are disclosed after publication
- ensure that appropriate reviewers are selected for submissions (i.e., individuals who judge the work and are free to disqualify competing interests)
- respect authors' requests that a person should not review their well-reasoned and practicable work
- be guided by the COPE flowcharts (http://publicationethics.org/flowcharts) in cases of suspected
misconduct or disputed authorship
- publish details on how they handle cases of suspected misconduct (e.g., with links to the COPE flowcharts)
- publication of the dates of submission and acceptance of papers

4. Relations with reviewers
Editors should provide guidance to reviewers on what is expected of them, including the need to handle material submitted confidentially. This guidance should be updated regularly and should refer or link to this code.
Editors should require reviewers to disclose any potential competing interests before reviewing a submission.
4.3. Editors should have systems in place to ensure that reviewers' identities are disclosed before they review a submission.
Use an open review system that is declared to authors and reviewers.
Best practices for editors would include:
- encouraging reviewers to comment on ethical issues and potential research and publications, misconduct raised by submissions (e.g., unethical research design, insufficient details about patient consent or protection of research subjects (including animals), inappropriate handling of data and presentation)
- encourage reviewers to comment on the originality of submissions and to be vigilant about location and plagiarism
- consider providing reviewers with tools to detect related publications (e.g., references and bibliographic searches)
- send reviewers' comments to authors in their entirety unless they contain offensive or defamatory comments or remarks
- seek to recognize the contribution of reviewers to the journal
- encourage academic institutions to recognize peer review activities as part of the scholarly process
- monitor the performance of reviewers and take steps to ensure that it is of a high standard
- develop and maintain a database of suitable reviewers and update it on the basis of the reviewer's performance
reviewer performance
- discontinuing the use of reviewers who consistently produce discourteous, poor quality, or late reviews
- ensuring that the reviewer database reflects the community for its journal and
Reviewers as needed
- using a wide range of sources (not only personal contacts) to identify potential new reviewers (author suggestions, bibliographic databases)
- following the COPE flowchart in cases of suspected reviewer misconduct

5. Relations with editorial board members
5.1. Editors should provide new editorial board members with guidelines on what is expected of them and should keep existing members updated on new developments.
Best practices for editors would include:
- having policies for handling submissions from editorial board members to ensure review.
- identifying suitably qualified editorial board members who can actively contribute to the development and good management of the journal
- periodically reviewing the composition of the editorial board
- provide clear guidance to editorial board members about their expected roles and duties, which could include:
- acting as ambassadors for the journal
- supporting and promoting the journal
- seeking out the best authors and the best work (e.g., from meeting abstracts) and actively encouraging submissions
- reviewing submissions to the journal
- accepting commissions to write editorials, reviews, and comments on papers in
your area of expertise
- attending and contributing to editorial board meetings
- consulting with editorial board members periodically (e.g., once a year) to assess their opinions about
Journal publication, informing them of any changes in journal policies and identifying.

6. Relations with journal owners and editors
6.1. The relationship of editors with publishers and owners is often complex, but should be based firmly
On the principle of editorial independence.
6.2. Editors should decide which articles to publish based on the quality of the journal and without interference from the journal owner/publisher.
6.3. Editors should have a written contract(s) that establishes their relationship with the journal owner and/or publisher.
6.4. The terms of this contract should be in line with the COPE Code of Conduct for Journal Editors.
Best practices for publishers would include:
- establishing mechanisms to handle disagreements between them and the owner/publisher with due process
- communicating regularly with the owner/publisher of their journal

7. Editorial and Peer Review Processes
Editors should strive to ensure that peer review in their journal is fair, impartial and timely.
7.2. Editors should have systems in place to ensure that material submitted to their journal remains confidential while under review.
Best practices for editors would include:
- ensuring that those involved in the editorial process (including themselves). Training and keeping abreast of the latest guidelines, recommendations and evidence on peer review and journal management.
- keeping up to date with peer review research and technological developments
- adopting peer review methods best suited to their journal and the research community it serves
- periodically reviewing peer review practices to see if there is room for improvement
- referring problematic cases to COPE, especially when questions arise that are not addressed by COPE, or new types of publication misconduct are suspected
- consider appointing an ombudsman to resolve complaints that are not resolved internally.

8. Quality Assurance
8.1. Editors should take all reasonable steps to ensure the quality of the material they publish, recognizing that journals and sections within journals will have different objectives and standards.
Best practice for publishers would include:
- having systems in place to detect falsified data (e.g. inappropriate photographic manipulation Plagiarized images or text) either for routine use or when suspicions are raised
- basing decisions about journal style on relevant evidence of factors that elevate the quality of the journal (e.g., adoption of structured abstracts, application of guidelines such as CONSORT2) rather than simply for aesthetic reasons or personal preferences.

9. Protection of individual data
9.1. Publishers must obey the privacy laws in their own jurisdiction. Regardless of local statutes, however, they must always protect the confidentiality of individual information obtained in the course of research or professional interactions (e.g., between physicians and patients). It is therefore almost always necessary to obtain written informed consent for the publication of individuals who might recognize themselves or be identified by others (e.g., from photographs). It may be possible to publish individual information without explicit consent if public interest considerations outweigh the potential harm, it is impossible to obtain reasonable would be unlikely to object to publication.

Best practices for publishers would include:
- publishing their policy on publication of individual data (e.g., personal data or identifiable images) and explaining this clearly to authors note that consent to participate in research or undergo treatment is not the same as consent to publish personal data, images, or quotations.
10. Encourage ethical research (e.g., human or animal research).
10.1. Editors should strive to ensure that the research they publish conforms to relevant internationally accepted guidelines (e.g., the Declaration of Helsinki8 for clinical research, the AERA and BERA guidelines for educational research9-11 ).
10.2. Editors should seek assurance that any research has been approved by an appropriate body
(e.g., research ethics committee, institutional review board) where one exists. However, editors should recognize that such approval does not guarantee that the research is ethical.
Best practices for editors would include:
- being prepared to request evidence of approval of ethical research and ethical issues (such as how research participant consent was obtained or employees employed to minimize animal suffering) if questions are raised or clarification is needed
- ensuring that clinical trial reports mention compliance with the Declaration of Helsinki8, Good Clinical Practice and other relevant guidelines to safeguard participants
- ensure that reports of animal experiments or studies report compliance with the Department of Health and Human Services Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals or other relevant guidelines
- appointing a journal ethics advisor or panel to advise on specific cases and review journal policies periodically

11. Dealing with possible misconduct
11.1. Editors have a duty to act if they suspect misconduct or if a report of misconduct is made to them. This duty extends to both published and unpublished documents.
11.2. Editors should not simply reject papers that raise concerns about possible misconduct. They are ethically obligated to pursue alleged cases.
11.3. Editors should follow COPE14 flowcharts where applicable.
11.4. Editors should first seek a response from suspected misconduct. If they are not satisfied with the response, they should ask employers, institutions, or
(perhaps a regulatory body or national research integrity organization).
11.5. Editors should make all reasonable efforts to ensure that an investigation into misconduct; 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.
12. Ensuring the Integrity of the Academic Record
12.1. Errors, inaccurate or misleading statements should be corrected promptly and prominently.
12.2. Editors should follow COPE guidelines on retractions.
Best practices for editors would include:
- taking steps to reduce covert redundant publication (e.g., by requiring that all essays be copyrighted)
- ensuring that published material is securely archived (e.g., through permanent online repositories, such as PubMed Central)
- have systems in place to give authors the opportunity to make original research articles available for publication.

13. Intellectual Property
13.1. Editors should be alert to intellectual property issues and work with their publisher to manage potential violations of intellectual property laws and conventions.
Best practices for publishers would include:
- adopting systems to detect plagiarism (e.g., software, search for similar titles) in articles (either routinely or when suspicions are raised).
- supporting authors whose copyrights have been violated or who have been victims of plagiarism
- be prepared to work with your publisher to defend authors' rights and prosecute infringers (requesting retractions or removal of material from websites) regardless of whether your journal owns the copyright.

15. Complaints
15.1. Editors should respond promptly to complaints and should ensure that there is a form for dissatisfaction complaints. This mechanism should be made clear in the journal and should include information on how to refer unresolved matters to COPE.
15.2. Editors should follow the procedure set out in the COPE flowchart on complaints.

16. Commercial Considerations
16.1. Journals should have policies and systems in place to ensure that editorial decisions considerations (e.g., advertising departments should operate independently of editorial departments).
16.2. Editors should have stated advertising policies regarding the content of the journal and on the processes for publishing sponsored supplements.
16.3. Reprints should be published as they appear in the journal, unless a correction is necessary. Included in this case should be clearly identified.
Best practice for editors would include:
- publishing a general description of their journal's sources of revenue (e.g., proportions of display advertising, reprint sales, sponsored supplements, page charges, etc.)
- ensure that the peer review process for sponsored supplements is the same as for the main journal
- ensure that articles in sponsored supplements are accepted solely on the basis of scholarly merit
And readers' interest and decisions about such supplements are not considerations.

17. Conflicts of interest
17.1. Editors should have systems in place to manage their own conflicts of interest, as well as those of their staff, authors, reviewers, and editorial board members.
17.2. Journals should have a stated process for handling submissions from editors, staff or editorial board members to ensure an unbiased review.
Best practices for editors would include:
- publishing lists of relevant interests (financial, academic, and other) of all editorial staff and editorial board members (which should be updated at least annually).