Code of Conduct

Ethics Statement and Editorial Best Practices

Policies of Memory and its publishing entity, CeDInCI, are governed by the Principles of Transparency and Best Practices in Academic Publishing and international standards published by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

In order to ensure transparency in both the publication of contributions and the procedures for resolving associated conflicts, it is also based on the Best Practice Guide for Journal Editors and the Publication Ethics Resource Kit (PERK),

The editorial team of Políticas de la Memoria commits to ensuring that all parties (editors, peer reviewers, and authors) adhere to ethical standards and best practices throughout the editorial process.

Outlined below is our code of conduct for editors, reviewers, and authors, as well as the procedures in case of academic misconduct, in accordance with editorial ethics and policies on malpractice.

This editorial best practice guide will be periodically reviewed.

Responsibility of Editors

• - Ensure transparency in contributions and in the evaluation and publication processes.

• - Ensure objective dialogue and confidentiality of the parties involved in the editorial process.

• - Respond promptly and respectfully to inquiries and notifications.

• - Proceed fairly, objectively, and justly, carrying out their tasks without discrimination based on gender, sexual orientation, religious or political beliefs, or authors' ethnic or geographical origins.

• - Treat submissions for special issues or supplements in the same way as regular submissions, so that articles are considered and accepted solely on the basis of their academic merit.

• - Adopt and follow reasonable procedures in cases of ethical or conflict objections. Provide authors with a reasonable opportunity to respond to any objections. All objections shall be investigated, regardless of when the original publication was approved. All documentation associated with any such objections shall be retained.

• - Publish corrections, clarifications, and retractions in cases of serious errors or accusations of misconduct. Synchronize the act of retractions with the corresponding rectifications and retractions.

• - Preserve the anonymity of reviewers and authors. Transparency in identifying objections and evaluating their relevance is imperative.

• - Any call for papers and manuscript submissions will be made in an appropriate, well-directed and discreet manner, with clear and truthful information about the journal and its evaluation process.

•  

  - Likewise, any marketing and advertising activity for this journal will always be done in an appropriate manner and with accurate information.

Responsibility of the Reviewers

• - Conduct a review based on academic rigor and objectivity.

• - Provide a prompt, clear, and constructive assessment in accordance with the editorial guidelines. Point out relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors.

• - Maintain confidentiality of the information. Any breach of confidentiality or suspected ethical breach in the evaluation should be reported promptly to the editor for appropriate investigation and action.

• - Do not review the manuscript if there is a conflict of interest due to competitive, collaborative, or other relationships with any of the authors, institutions, or companies associated with the work.

Responsibility of the Authors

• - Ensure that the work submitted for publication is original, appropriately cited, and does not violate any copyright laws.

• - Acknowledge all sources and contributors that have influenced the research and its interpretation, and disclose any conflicts of interest.

• - Provide accurate information about the work performed, and accurately report on the research, stating contributions from other parties, such as colleagues or research assistants.

• - Immediately notify the editor if a significant error or inaccuracy is identified in the published work. Cooperate with the editor and publisher to publish an erratum, clarification, or correction if necessary.

Procedures for Academic Misconduct

If ethical or academic misconduct is suspected, the following procedures shall be followed:

• - Any concerns about unethical behavior, including plagiarism, unethical research practices, or breaches of confidentiality, should be addressed to the editor-in-chief of the journal.

• - The editorial team will evaluate the concerns raised and, if deemed necessary, initiate an investigation following the guidelines provided by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

• - The editor-in-chief will communicate with the corresponding author and any other relevant parties to gather further information and clarification.

• If misconduct is proven or suspected, appropriate measures will be taken, including but not limited to contacting the author's institution, publishing corrections or retractions, and barring future submissions from the author(s) involved.

Responsibility of the Editorial Committee

The Editorial Committee of Memory Policies ensures that good editorial practice will be maintained according to the standards mentioned above.

Plagiarism Detection

Submissions must be original and not involve any form of plagiarism. Before evaluation, the journal checks through plagiarism detection software iThenticate and Duplichecker that the submitted work does not commit plagiarism. If this practice is detected, the work will be immediately rejected, and the sender will be provided with the collected evidence. The sender may make the arguments they deem appropriate; however, the journal reserves the right to definitively reject the submission after examining and responding to the allegations presented.

Procedures in Case of Academic Misconduct

> Identification of Unethical Behavior

• Misconduct or unethical behavior may be identified and reported to editors at any time by anyone.

• Anyone notifying editors of such behavior must provide sufficient information and evidence to initiate an investigation. All accusations will be taken seriously and handled in the same manner until a satisfactory decision or conclusion is reached.

> Investigation

• Editors will make an initial decision, which may be consulted or agreed upon with the responsible editor.

• Necessary evidence must be gathered while maintaining confidentiality and avoiding disclosure of accusations beyond those who strictly need to know.

> Minor Infractions

• A minor infraction may be resolved without further consultation. In any case, the author must have the opportunity to respond to any accusation.

> Serious Infractions

• A serious infraction may require notifying the accused's employers. Editors, with the consent of the responsible editor, must decide whether to involve employers, examining available evidence themselves or consulting a limited number of experts.

> Consequences (in increasing order of severity; may be applied collectively or separately)

1. Notify or explain to the author or reviewer when there appears to be a misunderstanding or incorrect application of accepted standards.

2. A written communication in a more severe tone to the author or reviewer, expressing misconduct and warning about future behavior.

3. Publication of a formal note detailing the misconduct.

4. Publication of an editorial detailing the misconduct.

5. Formal written communication to the department head or funding agency of the author or reviewer.

6. Formal retraction of the publication in the journal, along with notification to the department head of the author or reviewer, indexing services, and readers of the publication.

7. Imposition of a formal embargo on an individual's contributions for a defined period.

8. Reporting the case and its resolution to a professional organization or higher authority for further investigation.

Access the Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors developed by COPE.

 

The official communication channel for ethical issues related to the code of conduct is: politicasdelamemoria@cedinci.org