Ethical Standards for Publication

Ethical Publication Guidelines

The journal Engineering, Sustainability and Society promotes the adoption of exemplary practices based on ethical publication standards among all contributors, aligning with the guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), and the ethical publication standards of Academy Publisher and Elsevier. Consequently, it advocates for maximum rigor in both the review and publication processes, following the principles of exemplary ethical behavior by all parties involved in the editorial process: author, journal editor, reviewer, and publisher.

In Engineering, Sustainability and Society, each submitted article is evaluated and published according to its merits and scientific contributions, ensuring the implementation of the most appropriate practices at every stage of the publication process. Manuscripts are thoroughly reviewed for potential plagiarism using the Turnitin tool. Additionally, every article submitted for publication must meet the following requirements:

  • Consent: All authors give their consent for the submission and publication of the article under review.
  • Originality: The article is original, has not been previously published, and is not simultaneously under review in another journal.
  • Reproduction consent: The article does not include original material copied from other authors without their consent. If material from other authors is used, proper consent must be obtained and indicated for both print and electronic reproduction.
  • Previous research: All information derived from previous studies included in the article is properly referenced. If the article analyzes a previously published proposal, it must be properly cited.
  • Journal archive: The article will be stored in the journal’s archive and will be considered a valid publication provided it meets all the above criteria.
  • Review Committee: Review Committee members must have no personal, academic, or professional relationship with the authors.

 

  1. Research Integrity

1.1. Research Misconduct

Research misconduct includes fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism in proposing, conducting, reviewing research, or reporting results. If the Editorial Committee detects signs of misconduct, it will initiate an investigation with the collaboration of the affiliated institution, employer, sponsor, or relevant national authority.

1.2. Reporting Irregularities

Complaints about research irregularities, whether anonymous or not, will only be investigated if accompanied by sufficient supporting evidence.

1.3. Image Fabrication/Falsification and Manipulation

While image editing may be required to highlight certain features, inappropriate manipulation can lead to misleading results. Researchers must report any edits. Specific features must not be altered. Original and unpublished images must be submitted alongside any modifications. Uniform brightness and contrast adjustments are acceptable as long as they do not distort meaning. Excessive editing to emphasize size is inappropriate. Any deletion or non-linear adjustments must be indicated in the figure legend. Figures made from different components must be clearly marked.

1.4. Plagiarism

Plagiarism, including copying or misusing someone else's intellectual property, is strictly prohibited. The journal conducts a thorough plagiarism check on all manuscripts.

1.5. Duplicate/Redundant Publication

Researchers should avoid republishing data already presented as original. Republishing is allowed with proper acknowledgment. Conference abstracts, posters, meeting results, raw data, theses, and dissertations are not considered duplicate publications.

1.6. Text Recycling

Partial reuse of results for different audiences is allowed, provided discussion and conclusions are distinct.

1.7. Simultaneous Submission

Manuscripts cannot be submitted to multiple journals at once. If identified, the manuscript will not be considered for publication.

1.8. Translations of Previously Published Work

Translations of previously published manuscripts will not be accepted.

1.9. Sanctions

Sanctions are consistently applied following careful consideration. Retractions will be issued first. In severe cases, the author’s institution will be notified, and future submissions from the author(s) will be declined.

  1. Editorial Standards and Processes

2.1. Authorship

  • Author order must reflect scientific or professional contributions.
  • All authors must sign a statement indicating their level of participation.
  • Non-author contributors must be acknowledged with permission.
  • Authors must comply with administrative requirements and submit ethics approval.
  • Communication is shared with all authors.

2.2. Authorship Disputes

  • The Editorial Committee will contact the corresponding author for more information in case of authorship disputes.
  • Other authors may be contacted if needed.

2.3. Funding

  • All funding sources and specific roles must be detailed in the acknowledgments.
  • If no funding was received, this must be explicitly stated.
  • Editorial assistance and other support must be acknowledged.

2.4. Peer Review

  • The journal uses a double-blind peer review system.
  • The editorial section is not peer-reviewed.
  • Confidentiality is maintained throughout the review process.
  • Reviewers must disclose any conflicts of interest upon receiving an invitation.
  • Reviewers cannot assess manuscripts by authors with recent affiliations or competition.

2.5. Publication Timelines

  • The journal ensures timely peer review to avoid unnecessary delays.

2.6. Editors and Staff as Authors

  • Editors and editorial board members do not participate in decisions about their own articles.
  • A separate process is followed for editorial decisions in such cases.

2.7. Conflict of Interest

  • Editors, authors, and reviewers must disclose any conflicts that could affect objective review or submission.
  • This includes financial, personal, political, or religious interests.
  • Authors must disclose relevant funding, patents, shares, or interests.

2.8. Defamation

  • The Advisory Committee monitors manuscripts for defamatory language or negligent misrepresentation.
  • Defamatory language is prohibited, and authors are solely responsible for such content.

2.9. Editorial Independence

  • Although funded and edited by the University of Pamplona, editorial decisions remain independent.

2.10. Academic Debate

  • The journal encourages correspondence and constructive criticism of published works.
  • Authors will be invited to respond to correspondence before its publication.
  • Responses and correspondence will be published together whenever possible.
  • Authors cannot veto constructive comments.

2.11. Appeals

  • Authors may appeal editorial decisions with new information.
  • Reversals will only occur with new evidence.
  • The Editorial Committee may consult additional reviewers.

2.12. Corrections

  • Readers and authors must report errors, especially those affecting data interpretation.
  • Corrections will be issued. Major errors may result in retraction.
  • Authors must cooperate in issuing necessary corrections or retractions.

2.13. Retractions and Expressions of Concern

  • The journal follows COPE recommendations for handling retractions and errata.
  • Retractions are issued for errors affecting data interpretation or for fraudulent content.
  • Errata are appended to the original article. Retractions replace the original with an explanatory document.

2.14. Article Removal

  • Articles may only be removed in cases of legal violations, defamation, or data falsification.
  • A statement of removal will be published.

2.15. Data Protection Legislation

  • The journal complies with data protection laws.
  1. Handling Complaints and Appeals

The journal receives complaints and appeals via francisco.arencibia@unipamplona.edu.co, managed confidentially by the Editor-in-Chief to protect whistleblower anonymity.

Misconduct involving any individual in the research process (including editors, supervisors, or administrators) can be reported, even concerning the complainant’s own work.

The journal strictly follows COPE protocols in such cases, involving:

  1. Detection and Notification
  • The violation is identified and communicated to the author and editorial boards.
  1. Editorial Committee Report
  • A detailed report is prepared.
  1. Urgent Meeting
  • A joint meeting evaluates the case and determines next steps.
  1. Final Decision
  • A final decision is made. Implicated staff are removed from the process until it concludes.

In cases involving editors, authors, or publication rights, the Deputy Editor and the University of Pamplona's legal advisors will handle the claims.

The Editorial Committee's decisions may lead to actions such as issuing an Erratum, Corrigendum, or Retraction. In serious cases, the article will be rejected or retracted, and the author will be banned from future submissions. The infraction will be reported to their institution.

 

  1. Authors' Responsibilities
  • Information sources: Authors must present detailed procedures and calculations. Fraudulent or inaccurate calculations are ethical violations.
  • Originality and plagiarism: Proper citation is essential. Any form of plagiarism is unacceptable.
  • Redundant/concurrent publication: Authors must not submit identical manuscripts to multiple journals.
  • Source acknowledgment: Authors must cite all influential works and obtain permission for confidential data.
  • Authorship: Only those with substantial contributions may be listed as authors. All coauthors must approve the final version.
  • Disclosure of conflicts: Authors must disclose any conflicts of interest, including employment, consulting, or share ownership.
  • Similarity checks: The journal uses Turnitin and thorough reference checks to ensure academic integrity.
  • Significant errors: Authors must promptly inform the editor of significant errors in published work and cooperate in corrections or retractions.

 

  1. Editor Responsibilities
  • Publication decision: Based on reviewer reports and legal requirements.
  • Fair play: Evaluation is unbiased by race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, ethnicity, or politics.
  • Conflict of interest: The editor must not use unpublished material without consent and recuses themselves when conflicts exist.
  • Ethics education: The editor provides guidance on ethical publishing, especially for early-career researchers.
  • Peer review: Ensures impartial, timely, and expert reviews.
  • Monitoring published record: Ensures integrity and handles misconduct properly.

 

  1. Reviewer Responsibilities
  • Editorial decision input: Blind peer review informs decisions and offers authors constructive feedback.
  • Timeliness: Reviewers must notify the journal if they cannot meet deadlines.
  • Objectivity: Reviews must be objective and free of personal criticism.
  • Source acknowledgment: Reviewers must alert the editor of missing citations or similarities to prior works.
  • Conflict of interest disclosure: Reviewers must not use unpublished content without permission and must avoid reviewing manuscripts where conflicts exist.