Ethical Standards of Publication

The Journal of Research and Praxis in Social Sciences promotes the adoption of exemplary editorial practices based on internationally recognized ethical standards. To this end, it aligns itself with the guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), as well as with the ethical principles established by Academy Publisher and Elsevier. In this regard, the utmost rigor is encouraged in the evaluation and publication processes, demanding irreproachable ethical behavior from all stakeholders involved in the editorial process: authors, editors, reviewers, and the publisher itself.

Each article received by the Journal of Research and Praxis in Social Sciences is evaluated and published based on its merits and scientific contributions, ensuring the application of best practices at every stage of the editorial process. As part of this commitment, all manuscripts undergo a thorough review to detect possible cases of plagiarism using the Turnitin tool. Furthermore, each article submitted for review must meet the following requirements:

Author Consent: All authors agree to the submission and eventual publication of the article under review.

Manuscript Originality: The submitted work is original; it has not been previously published, nor is it simultaneously under review by another journal.

Use of Third-Party Material: The article does not contain material reproduced from other authors without proper authorization. In cases where excerpts, graphics, or other third-party content are used, explicit consent must be obtained for reproduction in both print and digital formats, and this consent must be duly cited.

References to Previous Research: All information from previous studies is duly referenced. If the article constitutes an analysis or reinterpretation of a previously published proposal, it must be cited clearly and precisely.

Editorial Archive: The manuscript will be kept in the archives of the Journal of Research and Praxis in Social Sciences and will be considered a valid publication, provided it meets all the criteria established above.

Impartiality of the Review Committee: The assigned Review Committee members have no employment, academic, or personal ties to the authors, thus ensuring an objective and impartial evaluation process.

 

1. RESEARCH INTEGRITY

1.1 Research Misconduct

Fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism during the proposal, execution, review, or dissemination of research is considered misconduct. If the Editorial Committee detects signs of these practices, it will initiate a formal investigation, requesting the collaboration of the affiliated institution, employer, sponsoring entity, or competent authority.

1.2 Reporting Irregularities

Reports of possible research irregularities will be considered provided they are accompanied by substantial evidence, regardless of whether they come from identified or anonymous individuals.

1.3 Fabrication, Forgery, and Image Manipulation

Image editing is permitted only for the purpose of clarity and must be done transparently. Specific features should not be altered, nor should images be manipulated to mislead. Original images must be presented alongside modified ones. Brightness or contrast adjustments are acceptable only if applied uniformly across the entire image, without altering its meaning. Exaggeration of size or the removal of parts without clear justification is prohibited. Any editing must be mentioned in the figure legend. If different components are combined in a single figure, they must be delimited with visible lines and explained in the legend.

1.4 Plagiarism

Plagiarism, understood as the misappropriation of other people's ideas, texts, or results, is strictly prohibited. All manuscripts submitted to the journal Investigacion y praxis CS sociales will be subject to rigorous anti-plagiarism control using specialized tools.

1.5 Duplicate or Redundant Publication

The publication of previously disseminated data as if they were original is not permitted. However, republication with due acknowledgment is valid in certain cases. Abstracts, conference presentations, uninterpreted data in repositories, and theses deposited in academic institutions are not considered duplicate publications.

1.6 Text Recycling

Partial use of previously published content is permitted if it is intended for a different audience and if the discussion and conclusion sections present a different focus.

1.7 Simultaneous Submission

Submitting a manuscript to more than one journal at the same time is prohibited. If this practice is detected, the manuscript will be automatically rejected.

1.8 Duplication in Different Languages

Translations of a previously published article in another language will not be accepted as a new publication.

1.9 Sanctions

Sanctions for violations will be applied consistently and after thorough evaluation. Initially, a formal retraction will be issued. In the most serious cases, the author(s)' home institution will be notified, and the journal reserves the right not to consider future contributions from those involved.

 

2. EDITORIAL RULES AND PROCESSES

2.1 Authorship

  • The authorship sequence must accurately reflect the level of scientific or professional contribution of each author.
  • All authors must sign a declaration of authorization, specifying their level of participation.
  • Contributions that do not meet the criteria for authorship must be acknowledged in the acknowledgments section, with the corresponding consent.
  • It is mandatory to comply with the administrative requirements and submit the approval certificate from the Institutional Ethics Committee.
  • All correspondence related to the article will be shared with all authors. 

2.2 Authorship Disputes

  • In case of suspicion regarding the authorship of a manuscript, the Editorial Committee will contact the corresponding author to request clarification.
  • If necessary, the other authors involved will also be contacted.

2.3 Funding

  • All funding sources must be fully disclosed in the acknowledgments section, including the specific role of each entity.
  • If no external funding is available, this must be specifically stated. Other forms of support, such as editorial assistance, must also be mentioned. 

2.4 Peer Review

  • The Journal applies a double-blind peer review system to all scientific articles.
  • Editorial content is not subject to peer review.
  • Confidentiality is guaranteed throughout the review process.
  • Reviewers must declare any conflicts of interest when accepting an invitation to review a manuscript.
  • They may not participate in the review of works whose authors have recent personal, academic, or professional ties, or belong to the same institution.

2.5 Publication Times

  • The Journal is committed to a rigorous and timely review process, avoiding unnecessary delays.

2.6 Editorial Participation as Authors

  • Editors, members of the Editorial Board, and the Advisory Committee do not participate in the editorial decisions of articles in which they are involved as authors.
  • In these cases, an independent procedure will be followed, which will be described in a specific declaration.

2.7 Conflicts of Interest

  • Authors, reviewers, and editors must disclose any conflicts of interest that may compromise the objectivity of the editorial process.
  • This includes, but is not limited to, financial, personal, academic, political, or religious interests.
  • Authors must declare all sources of funding and any participation in patents, stocks, or other forms of intellectual property related to the article.

2.8 Libel and Defamation

  • The Advisory Committee will review manuscripts and reviews to prevent defamatory expressions or negligent statements that could lead to legal consequences.
  • The use of defamatory language is prohibited, and authors will be responsible for their statements.

2.9 Editorial Independence and Commercial Aspects

  • Although the University of Pamplona funds and publishes the Journal, this does not influence editorial decisions, which are made with complete independence.

2.10 Academic Discussion

  • The Journal encourages scholarly correspondence and constructive criticism of published work.
  • If a letter directly refers to an article, the original author will be invited to respond before publication.
  • Whenever possible, the correspondence and response will be published simultaneously.
  • Authors may indicate whether they consider a letter constructive or not, but they have no authority to prevent its publication.

2.11 Appeals

  • Authors have the right to appeal editorial decisions with which they disagree.
  • An appeal may only reverse a previous decision if new relevant evidence is presented.
  • The Editorial Board may request a second external review to make a reasoned decision.

2.12 Corrections

  • It is the responsibility of both authors and readers to notify the Journal of errors in publications.
  • When such errors affect the interpretation of the data, a correction will be published.
  • In serious cases, publication of a retraction will be considered. All authors should collaborate in the correction or retraction of the article, if appropriate.

2.13 Retractions and Expressions of Concern

  • The Journal follows the recommendations of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) regarding the handling of errata, retractions, and expressions of concern.
  • Retractions will be published if the errors significantly affect the validity of the work, or if misconduct is identified.
  • In the case of errata, the original document will be retained with a correction note at the end.
  • Retractions will replace the original article with a notice explaining the reasons for the withdrawal.

2.14 Article Withdrawal

  • The removal, suppression, or concealment of an article will only be considered when there are well-founded legal reasons, such as defamation or fraudulent information.
  • In such cases, a formal statement indicating the removal of the content will be published.

2.15 Protection of Personal Data

  • The Journal of Research and Practice in Social Sciences complies with current legislation regarding the protection of personal data.

 

3. HANDLING OF COMPLAINTS, GRIEVANCES, AND APPEALS

The Journal of Research and Praxis in Social Sciences is committed to receiving complaints, grievances, and appeals via email at revistacs.sociales@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 potential misconduct by any individual involved in the research process, including those in various roles, supervisory, administrative, or scientific editing roles, as well as suspicions of research misconduct, even in relation to your own articles.

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

Detection and Communication:

  • The ethical violation is identified and the author is informed.
  • The Editorial Board and the Scientific Committee are notified through the journal's regular channels (emails).

Editorial Board Report:

  • The Editorial Board prepares a detailed report on the complaint.

Urgent Meeting:

  • An urgent meeting is held between the members of the Scientific Committee and the Editorial Board.
  • The case is evaluated, and the next steps are considered.

Final Decision:

  • A final decision is made, taking into account all parties involved.
  • If a member of the staff or the Editorial Board is implicated, they will be removed from the process until its conclusion.

In situations directly involving editors and authors, publication rights, and other obligations, the Associate Editor, in collaboration with the University of Pamplona's legal advisors, will be responsible for addressing complaints. Inquiries should be directed to revistacs.sociales@unipamplona.edu.co

Editors are responsible for implementing the measures dictated by the Editorial Board. In cases of proven ethical misconduct, the article may receive sanctions such as Errata, Corrigendum, or Retraction. In the most serious cases, the article will be rejected, and if already published, it will be withdrawn with a retraction. As a result, the author will not be able to publish in the Journal again, and the misconduct will be reported to their immediate supervisor.

 

4. OBLIGATIONS OF AUTHORS

  • Sources of Information: Authors must present detailed procedures and calculations in their articles, ensuring that all data are explicitly stated in the document. Any inaccurate or fraudulent calculations are considered an ethical violation.
  • Originality and Plagiarism: Correct citation of authors, contributors, and sources is essential. Plagiarism, in its various forms, such as copying, unattributed paraphrasing, or presenting others' results as one's own, is considered unacceptable.
  • Redundant or Concurrent Publication: Authors should avoid publishing essentially identical manuscripts in more than one journal. Simultaneous submission of the same work to multiple 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 significantly contributed to the design, execution, or interpretation of the research. All co-authors must approve the final version of the paper and ensure that individuals with substantial contributions are included.
  • Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest: Authors must disclose any financial or other conflicts of interest that may influence the interpretation of the manuscript. This includes employment, consultancies, stock ownership, and other relevant connections.
  • Similarity Analysis: The Journal of Research and Praxis in Social Sciences uses the Turnitin tool to detect plagiarism and thoroughly reviews references to ensure academic integrity.
  • Significant Errors in Published Work: Authors are responsible for immediately notifying the Editor of significant errors in their published work and cooperating with any necessary corrections or retractions.

 

5. EDITOR'S OBLIGATIONS

  • Publishing Decision: The Editor decides which articles will be published based on peer review reports. Decisions are made considering the importance to the community and in compliance with legal requirements.
  • Fair Play: Reviews are conducted without bias based on race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, ethnic origin, or politics. The double-blind peer review system prevents prejudice.
  • Conflict of Interest: The Editor will not use unpublished material for research without consent. They recuse themselves from reviewing manuscripts with conflicts of interest and guarantee the confidentiality of information obtained during peer review.
  • Education on Publishing Ethics: 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 of the Published Record: The Editor works to safeguard the integrity of the record by addressing misconduct and ensuring that necessary corrections are made appropriately.

 

6. REVIEWER OBLIGATIONS

  • Contribution to Editorial Decisions: Blind peer review is essential for editorial decision-making and for providing constructive feedback to authors.
  • Punctuality: Reviewers must notify authors if they are unable to review within the established deadline. They treat manuscripts as confidential and avoid discussing them with others without authorization.
  • Standards of Objectivity: The review is conducted objectively, avoiding personal criticism. Reviewers express their views clearly and support them with arguments.
  • Acknowledgment of Sources: Reviewers alert authors to the lack of citation of relevant works and any substantial similarity with previous work.
  • 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 the information obtained during peer review.