Ethical Publishing Standards

The Colombian Journal of Advanced Technologies (RCTA) promotes the adoption of exemplary practices based on ethical publication standards among all collaborators, aligning with the guidelines of the Research Ethics Committee (COPE), the ethical publication guidelines of Academy Publisher and Elsevier. Consequently, we advocate for maximum rigor in both the evaluation and the publication process, following the principles of exemplary ethical behavior by all parties involved in the editorial process: author, journal editor, reviewer and publisher.

In RCTA Magazine, each article submitted is evaluated and published according to its merits and scientific contributions, guaranteeing the implementation of the most appropriate practices at each stage of the publication process. We carried out an exhaustive review of the manuscripts to detect possible cases of plagiarism using the Turnitin tool. Additionally, each article submitted for review for publication must meet the following requirements:

  • Consent: All authors grant their consent for the submission and publication of the article under evaluation.
  • Originality of the work: The article sent for review is original, has not been previously published and has not been simultaneously sent for evaluation in another journal.
  • Consent to reproduce a work: The article does not include original material copied from other authors without their consent, and if material from other authors is used, your consent for its printed and electronic reproduction must be clearly indicated.
  • Previous research: All information derived from previous studies, included in the article under review, is duly referenced. If it is an analysis of a previously published proposal, it must be cited appropriately.
  • Journal archives: The article under review will be kept in the RCTA Magazine archives and will be considered a valid publication as long as it meets each of the above criteria.
  • Review Committee: The members of the Review Committee do not maintain any relationship, whether work, academic or personal, with the authors.

 

  1. RESEARCH INTEGRITY

1.1. Research Misconduct: Research misconduct encompasses fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism in proposing, conducting, or reviewing research, as well as in reporting its results. If the Editorial Committee detects signs of this conduct, it will initiate an investigation requesting the collaboration of the supporting institution, employer, sponsor or competent national entity.

1.2. Report of Irregularities: Complaints about irregularities in the investigation, presented by identified individuals or anonymously, will be subject to investigation only if they are accompanied by the corresponding evidence.

1.3. Image Fabrication/Falsification and Manipulation: Although image editing is sometimes required to highlight certain features, inappropriate image manipulation can produce misleading results. Researchers should report any editing of images, following these recommendations: specific features should not be altered, original and unpublished images should be submitted along with any modifications intended for publication. Adjustments to brightness or contrast are only acceptable when they are applied evenly to the entire image without distorting its meaning. Excessive editing to emphasize image size is not appropriate. Any removal of parts of a recording or non-linear adjustments should be noted in the figure legend. Figures should not be constructed from different components; However, if necessary, it should be clearly indicated with dividing lines in the figure and its legend.

1.4. Plagiarism: Plagiarism, which involves copying or misusing another person's intellectual property, is strictly prohibited. The Colombian Journal of Advanced Technologies (RCTA) carries out an exhaustive plagiarism check on all manuscripts.

1.5. Duplicate and Redundant Publication of Data: Researchers should avoid publishing data previously disclosed as original. Republishing or republication of data is permitted as long as it is done with due acknowledgement. Abstracts and posters presented at conferences, results at scientific meetings, uninterpreted data in databases, and theses and dissertations archived at university institutions are not considered duplicate publications.

1.6. Text Recycling: The presentation of partial results from a previous publication aimed at a different audience is permitted, as long as the discussion and conclusion are different.

1.7. Simultaneous Submission: Authors cannot submit a manuscript to more than one journal simultaneously. If the Editorial Committee identifies such a situation, the manuscript will not be considered for publication.

1.8. Duplicate information published in other languages : translations of already published manuscripts will not be considered for publication.

1.9. Sanctions : Sanctions are applied consistently after careful consideration. First, a retraction will be issued. In the most serious circumstances , the institution from which the author(s) come will be notified, and the Journal will refuse to examine the future work of the author(s) involved.

 

  1. EDITORIAL STANDARDS AND PROCESSES

2.1. Authorship:

  • The sequence of authors should adequately reflect scientific or professional contributions.
  • All authors must sign a release, indicating their level of participation.
  • Contributions that do not meet authorship criteria must appear in acknowledgments with permission.
  • Compliance with administrative requirements and presentation of the approval record of the Institutional Ethics Committee.
  • All communication is shared with all authors of the article.

2.2. Authorship Disputes:

  • If authorship problems are suspected, the Editorial Committee will contact the corresponding author for more information.
  • Other authors can be contacted if additional information is required.
  1. Financing:
  • All funding sources and their specific roles should be detailed in the acknowledgments section.
  • If there are no funding sources, this circumstance must be explicitly declared. Other sources, including editorial assistance, should also be specified.

2.4. Peer Review:

  • The Journal uses a double-blind review system for all submitted articles.
  • The editorial section is not subject to peer review.
  • Confidentiality throughout the review process.
  • Disclosure of any conflict of interest by reviewers when responding to a review invitation.
  • In cases of conflict of interest, reviewers will not be able to evaluate manuscripts from authors with whom they have recent relationships at the same institution or direct competition.

2.5. Publication Times:

  • The Journal is committed to ensuring timely peer review, avoiding unnecessary delays in the publication process.

2.6. Editors and Magazine Staff as Authors:

  • The editors, as well as the members of the Editorial Committee and the Advisory Committee, do not participate in editorial decisions involving their own articles.
  • A detailed statement about the process that will be followed to make editorial decisions will be provided in cases where the editor or members of the Editorial Committee or the Advisory Committee are authors of a work.

2.7. Conflict of interests:

  • Editors, authors, and reviewers must disclose any conflict of interest that may affect their ability to present or review a manuscript objectively.
  • Conflicts of interest include, but are not limited to, financial, personal, political or religious interests.
  • Authors should describe any relevant funding, including the purpose of such funding, as well as any patents, stocks and shares they hold.

2.8. Slander and Defamation:

  • The Advisory Committee monitors manuscripts and peer reviews to identify defamatory expressions or negligent misrepresentations, which could lead to legal action.
  • The use of defamatory language is prohibited, and the author of such expressions assumes full responsibility.

2.9. Editorial Independence and Commercial Issues:

  • Although the University of Pamplona finances and edits the Journal, this does not influence editorial decisions.

2.10. Academic Debate:

  • The Journal encourages correspondence and constructive criticism in relation to published works.
  • When a correspondence discusses a specific article, the author is invited to respond prior to publication of the correspondence.
  • To the extent possible, the correspondence and the author's response will be published together. Authors can indicate whether they consider a correspondence to be constructive, but they do not have the power to veto comments.

2.11. Appeals:

  • Authors who do not agree with the editorial feedback have the right to file an appeal against the decision made by the Editorial Committee.
  • Appeals will overturn previous decisions only when new information is available, and reversals of decisions will not be made without new evidence.
  • The Editorial Board may seek additional comments from reviewers to make an informed decision.

2.12. Corrections:

  • Readers and authors have the responsibility to notify the Journal of errors in a publication, especially those that could affect the interpretation of the data.
  • Corrections will be published, and if major errors are found that could invalidate the work, publication of a retraction will be considered.
  • All authors are obliged to provide retractions or corrections of errors when they are detected.

2.13. Retractions and Expressions of Concern:

  • The Journal adheres to the recommendations issued by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) to address errata and retractions derived from poor scientific practices.
  • Retractions are published when reported errors may affect the interpretation of the data, or when the information presented in the work is fraudulent or involves serious ethical lapses.
  • In case of errors, the original document is maintained, and at the end of the text the correction is recorded, referring to the document that published the error.
  • In the case of retractions, the original document is replaced by another that indicates the reasons for the withdrawal and indicates the document subject to retraction.

2.14. Item Removal:

  • Deletion, deletion or hiding of an article is only permitted in cases involving legal violations, defamation or other legal limitations, or when there is false or inaccurate data.
  • In such cases, a withdrawal statement will be published.

2.15. Data Protection Legislation:

  • RCTA Magazine complies with data protection legislation.

 

  1. TREATMENT OF COMPLAINTS, COMPLAINTS AND APPEALS

The Colombian Journal of Advanced Technologies (RCTA) is committed to receiving complaints, complaints and appeals through the email rcta@unipamplona.edu.co. These will be managed by the Editor-in-Chief and handled with the utmost confidentiality to preserve the anonymity of the complainant.

You are encouraged to report possible misconduct by any individual involved in the research processes, including various roles, supervisory, administrative or scientific editing functions, as well as suspicions of misconduct in research, even in relation to your own articles.

The Journal maintains rigorous editorial ethical control and follows the protocol established by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) to address alleged misconduct, which involves the following general steps:

  1. Detection and Communication:
    • The ethical violation is identified and the author is informed.
    • The Editorial Committee and the Scientific Committee are notified through the journal's regular channels (emails).
  2. Editorial Committee Report:
    • The Editorial Committee prepares a detailed report on the complaint.
  3. Urgent Meeting:
    • An urgent meeting is held between the members of the Scientific Committee and Editorial Committee.
    • The case is evaluated and the measures to follow are considered.
  4. Final decision:
    • A final decision is made, taking into account all parties involved.
    • If a member of the team or the Editorial Committee is involved, they will be removed from the process until its conclusion.

In situations that directly involve editors and authors, publication rights and other obligations, the Deputy Editor, in collaboration with the legal advisors of the University of Pamplona, will be responsible for addressing the claims. Inquiries should be directed to rcta@unipamplona.edu.co.

Editors are responsible for implementing the measures dictated by the Editorial Committee. In cases of proven ethical misconduct, the article may receive sanctions such as Errata, Corrigendum or Retraction. At its maximum severity, the article will be rejected and, if already published, it will be withdrawn with a retraction. As a consequence, the author will not be able to publish in the Journal again, and the lack will be communicated to his direct superior.

 

  1. OBLIGATIONS OF THE AUTHORS
  • Sources of information: Authors must present procedures and calculations in detail in their articles, ensuring that all data are explicitly stated in the document. Any inaccurate or fraudulent calculation is considered an ethical violation.
  • Originality and plagiarism: Correct citation of authors, collaborators and sources is essential. Plagiarism, in its various forms, such as copying, unattributed paraphrasing or presenting other people's results as your own, is considered an unacceptable practice.
  • Redundant or concurrent publication: Authors should avoid publishing essentially the same manuscripts in more than one journal. Simultaneous submission of the same work to several journals is considered an ethical violation.
  • Acknowledgment of sources: Adequate acknowledgment of the work of others is required. Authors must cite all sources influential in their research and obtain written permission to use confidential information.
  • Authorship of the document: Authorship should be limited to those who have contributed significantly to the design, execution or interpretation of the research. All co-authors must approve the final version of the document and ensure that people who have had substantial contributions are included.
  • Disclosure and conflicts of interest: Authors must notify any financial or other conflicts of interest that may influence the interpretation of the manuscript. This includes employment, consulting, stock ownership and other relevant connections.
  • Similarity Analysis: RCTA Magazine uses the Turnitin tool to detect plagiarism and exhaustively reviews references to guarantee academic integrity.
  • Significant errors in published works: Authors are responsible for immediately notifying the Editor of significant errors in their published work and cooperating in necessary corrections or retractions.

 

  1. OBLIGATIONS OF THE EDITOR
  • Publication decision: The Editor decides which articles will be published based on reviewer reports. Decisions are made considering the importance to the community and complying with legal requirements.
  • Fair Play: Evaluations are conducted without bias based on race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, ethnicity, or politics. The double blind evaluation system avoids bias.
  • Conflict of interest: The Editor will not use unpublished material for research without consent. He recuses himself from reviewing manuscripts with which he has conflicts of interest and guarantees the confidentiality of the information obtained during peer review.
  • Publishing ethics education: The Editor provides education on ethical standards, especially for early career researchers.
  • Peer Review: Ensures a fair, impartial and timely review process. External, independent reviewers evaluate manuscripts, avoiding bias and selecting experts in the relevant field.
  • Oversight over the published record: The Editor works to safeguard the integrity of the record, addressing misconduct and ensuring that necessary corrections are made appropriately.

 

  1. OBLIGATIONS OF THE REVIEWERS
  • Contribution to editorial decisions: Blind peer review is essential for making editorial decisions and providing constructive feedback to authors.
  • Punctuality: Reviewers must notify if they cannot review within the established deadline. They treat manuscripts as confidential and avoid discussing them with others without authorization.
  • Objectivity standards: The review is carried out objectively, avoiding personal criticism. Reviewers express their views clearly, supported by arguments.
  • Acknowledgment of sources: Reviewers warn about the lack of citation of relevant works and any substantial similarity with previous works.
  • Disclosure and conflict of interest: Reviewers do not use unpublished material for their research without permission. They avoid reviewing manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest and maintain the confidentiality of information obtained during peer review.