Code of ethics
DECLARATION ON ETHICS AND MALPRACTICES IN SCIENTIFIC PUBLICATION
The Declaration on Ethics and Malpractice in Scientific Publication (Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement) of Scripta Ethnologica Nueva Epoca accompanies the joint efforts of authors, editors and peer reviewers for the production of responsible research.
The statement is based on the ethical principles established by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).
1. RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE AUTHORS
The texts presented for publication must be the result of original and unpublished research. They should include the data obtained and used, as well as an objective discussion of their results.
Sufficient information must be provided so that any specialist can repeat the investigations carried out and confirm or refute the interpretations presented and defended in the work.
The authors must be aware of the ethical principles of scientific work and refrain from engaging in scientific misconduct.
Authors must present their results clearly, honestly, and without falsification or inappropriate manipulation of the data; ensuring that the data and results exposed in the work are original and have not been copied, distorted, invented or manipulated.
Authors must be aware that plagiarism in all its forms, including self-plagiarism, multiple or redundant publication of research results, as well as the invention/manipulation of data constitute serious breaches of ethics and are considered scientific fraud.
Authors must provide appropriate authorship and credit. All authors listed must have contributed significantly to the research and the order of their appearance must show their degree of contribution.
Authors must inform the editor when there is a direct or indirect conflict of interest with the editors or members of the editorial team or the international scientific committee.
No significant part of the article will have been previously published, either as an article or as a chapter, or will be under consideration for publication elsewhere.
When an author discovers a serious error in their work, they have the obligation to notify the journal as soon as possible, to modify their article, withdraw it, retract or publish a correction or errata. This requirement has no time limit and includes results already approved and published.
If the possible error is detected by any of the members of the Writing Committee, as well as by the peer reviewers, the author is obliged to demonstrate that their work is correct.
The authors are obliged, for all submitted materials, to participate in a blind peer review process and to consider the evaluations that they carry out.
2. RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE EDITORS
The Editorial Team will be impartial when managing the works proposed for publication and must respect the intellectual independence of the authors, who must be recognized the right of reply and presentation of arguments in case they have been negatively evaluated.
The people who make up the Editorial Team have the obligation to keep the texts received and their content confidential throughout the evaluation and editing process until the moment of their acceptance for publication, at which time the title, authorship and affiliation may be disclosed.
Institutions of the authors.
No member of the Editorial Board, Editorial Board or Editorial Committee may use data, arguments or interpretations contained in unpublished works for their own research.
2.1. Publication Decision
All contributions will be initially evaluated by the Editorial Team. This is solely responsible for selecting, processing and deciding which of the articles submitted to the journal meets the editorial objectives and, therefore, could be published. Each document that is deemed suitable is sent to two blind reviewers, experts in their field and capable of evaluating the specific qualities of the work.
The editor is responsible for the final decision on whether the document is accepted or rejected.
The decision to publish an article will be evaluated based on its adaptation to the theme of Revista Scripta Ethnologica Nueva Epoca, its importance for other researchers, professionals and potential readers. Publishers must make unbiased decisions regardless of commercial considerations.
Editors who make the final decisions on manuscripts should withdraw from editorial decisions if they have conflicts of interest or relationships that raise potential concerns regarding the articles under consideration. In such a case, the responsibility for the final decision regarding the publication will be attributed to an editor who does not have any conflict of interest.
2.2 Review of the works
The Journal's Management and the Editorial Committee will ensure that the published research works have been evaluated by at least two specialists in the field, and that said review process has been fair and impartial, under the modality of blind peers.
The reviewed articles are treated confidentially by the members of the Editorial Committee, the International Scientific Committee and the invited reviewers.
The Editorial Committee must thank and recognize the work of the invited reviewers; dispensing for future evaluations of those who carry out evaluations of low quality, incorrect, disrespectful or delivered outside the established deadlines.
2.3 Identification and prevention of misconduct
In no case, the members of the Management, Editorial Committee or Scientific Committee will encourage misconduct of any kind or knowingly allow such misbehavior to occur.
The members of the Directorate, the Editorial Committee and the International Scientist will try to prevent misconduct by informing authors and reviewers about the ethical behavior that is required of them.
Reviewers and members of the scientific and writing committees will be asked to be aware of all types of misconduct in order to identify papers in which research misconduct of any kind has occurred or appears to have occurred and to process complaints accordingly.
In case of misconduct, the journal editor is responsible for solving the problem together with the members of the editorial committee and the scientific committee, the expert reviewers and the experts in the field; documenting the process and preserving the information. The editor of the magazine will contact the author, to give him the opportunity to respond to the complaint, allegation or dispute. All actions within the framework of this process will be carried out within the framework of COPE's recommendations.
3. RESPONSIBILITIES OF REVIEWERS
All reviewers must be aware of and take into account the publication's editorial policy and ethics and malpractice statement.
The journal will require potential reviewers to have scientific background or significant work experience in a relevant field. They must have recently carried out research and/or work and have gained experience that is recognized by their peers. Potential reviewers must provide personal and professional information that is accurate and provides a fair representation of their experience.
Reviewers should withdraw if they know that they are not qualified to evaluate a manuscript, if they consider that their evaluation of the material will not be objective, or if they consider themselves in a conflict of interest with all or any of the authors of the work.
Reviewers are asked to identify papers in which research misconduct has occurred or appears to have occurred and report it to the editorial board, which will deal with each case accordingly.
4. CONFLICT OF INTERESTS
Members of the writing team and reviewers will withdraw in the event of a conflict of interest regarding an author or authors, or the content of a manuscript to be evaluated. Any conflict of interest between the authors, reviewers and members of the editorial team and the scientific committee will be avoided.
Editors and reviewers should withdraw from making decisions in the following situations:
• There is a direct relationship between an author and a reviewer.
• There is recent and significant professional collaboration between reviewers and authors.
• The editor or reviewer believes that it cannot be objective, either for personal or professional
reasons.
