Code of ethics

RC Rendición de Cuentas is committed to developing the journal's processes with attachment to good editorial practices and publication ethics. We adhere to the rules established by the University of Guadalajara, as well as those defined by the National Council of Science and Technology (Conacyt) and those of the Publications Ethics Committee (COPE) https://publicationethics.org. Likewise, we attend to the guidelines and recommendations of organizations internationally recognized for their commitment to the ethics of publications, such as the Council of Science Editors (CSE) repositories and indexes.

The director, editorial coordinator, dictators, editorial board and authors involved in the publication process have the responsibility to assume an ethical and honest behavior in accordance with their participation in that process. Our purpose is to prevent and discourage bad practices when participating in the different areas of magazine management and content publication.

 

Ethical roles and responsibilities in publication

Ethical responsibilities of authors

Comply with the "Publication Ruides for Authors" established by the journal, as well as the requirements related to originality and relevance.

Present your results honestly and without lies, falsification or data manipulation. Assume collective responsibility - if applicable - for the work presented and published.

Do not present the same article simultaneously for publication in other journals. The simultaneous proposal of a publication in different scientific journals is considered a bad practice by the authors and is reprehensible.

Take into account that they will not be submitted to evaluation until all the requirements established in the "Publication Journals for Authors" established by the journal are met.

Take into account that publishers will make use of anti-plagiarism software.

Seriously consider the observations and requests of the dictators for the correction of the manuscripts, will respond in a timely, clear and justified manner to the indications of the dictators in which he disagrees.

Explicitly report any funding received for the completion of the research article. The work will not have been influenced by any commercial, political or financial interest.

Ethical responsibilities of publishers

Submit for arbitration all manuscripts that you receive and that meet the criteria of the initial review established in the "Publication Reviews for Authors".

Ensure that the peer review process is carried out with due confidentiality, which implies keeping anonymity between authors and reviewers. In the same way, observe confidentiality in the communications entered, in the reports and rulings issued.

Ensure that the acceptance or rejection of an article is based on compliance with editorial policies, as well as on the academic and research qualities of the articles sent to the journal.

Avoid the possibility of conflict of interest by taking care of the selection of expert reviewers to whom article proposals are sent.

Supervise the style correction and technical quality of the magazine.

Collaborate to maintain the periodicity established for the publication of the magazine and so that the dissemination and distribution of each issue begins during the first month of the corresponding period.

Ensure that the manuscripts will be reviewed by qualified evaluators and specialists in each thematic area.

Provide support and guidance to dictators on what is expected of their assessment (opinion format, evaluators' code of ethics, delivery periods).

Keep the database of dictators updated in which the participation of the PIRC Community will be reflected.

Request support from the members of the Editorial Board for the assignment of evaluators.

Ethical responsibilities of dictators and reviewers

Accept the review of manuscripts in your area of specialty, in order to carry out an adequate evaluation.

Declare - from the beginning of the process - if there is a conflict of interest. If you suspect the identity of the author(s), notify the journal if this knowledge raises any possible conflict of interest.

Offer a quality review and with sustained observations that support the failure presented. Its evaluation will be based on originality, the contribution of the article to the theme, the methodology used, the relevance, bibliography used, style, coherence and quality in the structure and in the writing of the text. Personal criticism is not valid.

Deliver the opinion in the established and agreed times with the editor of the magazine.

Maintain the confidentiality of the information you receive from the magazine during the evaluation process.

Do not forward or make use of the research papers dictated at any time during the editorial process.

Make the editor aware if when reviewing the manuscript he does not feel with sufficient experience to issue his opinion.

Warn the editors if they detect a lack in the originality of the articles in the opinion and, if necessary, indicate the publication of the work in another medium.

Identification of bad practices in the publication

Cases of malpractice in the publication can be identified by any member involved in the editorial process of RC Rendición de Cuentas: director, editorial coordinator, dictators, editorial board and external advisory committee. The allegations that are notified must be substantiated and supported by evidence.

RC Rendición de Cuentas considers as plagiarism the appropriation of the work or ideas of another person in any form or measure, without having given the corresponding credit. It is not acceptable in any of its forms. If a document proposed for publication has a high percentage of similarity (more than 30%) or repeatedly contains fragments without citing the source, it will be rejected. We understand as self-plagiarism the presentation of previous own works as novel or original products. Duplicate publication is the simultaneous presentation of the same work to two different magazines or editorial media. It is considered a bad academic practice considered serious. To these behaviors are added the falsification and manufacture of data.

Mechanisms for managing bad practices in the publication process

Bad practices can be identified by any member of the editorial team, in which cases, bad practices must be well-founded and motivated. All the situations indicated in the previous section will be addressed taking as support and reference the flowcharts proposed by COPE, adapting them to the policies of RC Accountability.

In the first instance, the editor of the journal will contact the author or authors indicated to make him aware of the specific case and will request a response to the plea. In case of not receiving a satisfactory response, the case will be shared with the members of the Editorial Board, who will make a decision based on the evidence provided and the severity of the case, which may result in the cancellation of the article from the review or edition process, or the elimination of the article if it was already published.

When the offense is serious and involves a violation of the law, the case will be transferred to the Office of the Advocate General of the University of Guadalajara, from where the determined process will be followed. If considered necessary or useful for the scientific community, the universities or research centers of the investigated author could participate in the case.

To prevent and address cases of malpractice at an early stage, we use a digital plagiarism detection system before being accepted for evaluation, where the level of similarity with other texts is identified, in addition to the fact that the information cited is correctly attributed to the original authorship.

Any complaint or disagreement about an evaluation process will be attended as long as the author identifies possible errors in the review of the text. Complaints will be directed to the editor, with all the necessary arguments and evidence to consider the case. If necessary, the editor will request the support of the Editorial Board or one of its members who is an expert on the subject of the article being evaluated.

Retractions: If you have the certainty of a bad practice considered serious, and the authors did not present the evidence to defend the case, your article if it has not yet been published will be rejected. In case the article has already been published, the file will not be removed from the table of contents, but a note will be added indicating the retraction and its reason. As far as possible, the status of the document will be notified to the various databases that index the journal.