Ethical oversight policy

The journal miradas adheres to international standards in scientific publications, committing itself to the academic and scientific community to ensure the ethics and quality of the articles published throughout the process. The journal has as guidelines the Code of Conduct and Good Practices: defined by the Committee of Publication Ethics (COPE: https://publicationethics.org/).

Editorial Team:

  • To guarantee the confidentiality of all contributions received, whether they are published or discarded after the evaluation process, as well as the anonymity of the authors, the evaluators and the results.

  • Review compliance with all ethical and editorial criteria of the contributions submitted, especially in relation to the verification of plagiarism, as a condition for the start of the evaluation process. In any case, authors should be informed promptly and clearly about any decision taken, or request the corresponding clarifications when the situation warrants it, always acting under the law and the governing ethical principles.

  • To initiate in a timely manner the process of searching for peer reviewers, guaranteeing the ethical and scientific suitability of the reviewers assigned for each article according to their academic trajectories and publications in relation to the subject matter, taking into consideration the suggestions of the authors as long as this does not represent any conflict of interest.

  • To effectively process all complaints, claims or suspicions of fraud, plagiarism, anti- plagiarism or any other conduct that goes against the ethical guidelines subscribed by the journal.

  • Resolve the concerns of authors and reviewers in a timely and appropriate manner, publish retractions and errata when necessary, and make the corresponding adjustments in the files published in digital format in cases where inaccuracies or errors have been made in the published information.

  • To keep authors informed of all new developments that arise in the course of the editorial process, especially when there are complaints, claims or suspicions of editorial conduct contrary to the journal's ethical policy.

  • To grant conditions of equality and impartiality for the treatment of all the contributions received, over and above the personal or institutional affinity between the authors and the members of the journal's editorial team.

  • Maintain the quality of the publications produced, protecting and respecting the content of the manuscripts, as well as their integrity.

• The journal undertakes to publish corrections, clarifications, retractions and apologies when necessary.

Authors:

  • Declare authorship and possession of intellectual property rights for all content submitted to the journal, as well as the respective authorization in the case of supporting graphic material.

  • Duly reference, based on the citation norms indicated in the editorial policy, all own or third party works published in other scientific or divulgation journals, internet portals, media or institutional repositories.

  • Clearly state the sources of funding for the research that gave rise to the research articles submitted to the journal, as well as the participation of all the people involved in the preparation of the article.

  • Guarantee the originality of the contributions sent to the journal, which must not be compromised with publication processes in any other media.

Evaluators:

  • Declare possible conflicts of interest before starting the evaluation of articles.

  • Commit to preserving the confidentiality of the articles submitted for evaluation.

  • Refrain from taking and/or sharing ideas or excerpts from assigned articles.

  • Warn the editorial team of any suspicion of fraudulent conduct, plagiarism, anti-

    plagiarism or recycling of published texts.

  • Contribute to the formative process of the authors with extensive and detailed

    observations and comments oriented to the academic qualification of the articles.

  • Comply with the deadlines assigned for the evaluation and inform the editorial team in a timely manner when problems arise that prevent compliance with these

    deadlines.

The editorial board, editor, authors and reviewers must comply with and follow the international ethical standards defined by the (COPE), in order to avoid cases of:

  • Double submission: Submit the manuscript to several journals simultaneously.

  • Manipulation of evaluation by academic peers.

  • Systematic manipulation of the publication process.

  • Fabrication, falsification or omission of data.

  • Plagiarism and self-plagiarism.

  • Redundant, duplicated or fragmented publication (salami article).

  • Omission of references to the sources consulted.

  • Use of content without permission or without justification.

  • Individual appropriation of collective authorship.

  • Changes in authorship.

  • Ghost authors, gift authors or guest authors on a submitted manuscript.

  • Undisclosed or undeclared conflict of interest (COI).

The journal will act with the greatest possible severity when any of the above-mentioned cases arise. In case of suspected misconduct, the flow charts developed by the COPE (https://publicationethics.org/files/recognising-authorship-problems-cope-infographic.pdf .2022) will be followed in the search for the corresponding required actions.

In case of shared authorship, there must have been a full consensus of all authors involved, and state that it has not been previously presented or published in another media, including in another language. All authors, who sign, are defined from the submission of the manuscript to the journal. They cannot be modified in any way, adding new ones or withdrawing existing ones, during any stage of the editorial process. The request alone is cause for withdrawal of the work, so the authors must initiate the editorial process in a new call for papers if this happens.

Authorship criteria [1]:

An "author" is the person who has made a significant intellectual contribution to the article, therefore, all persons named as authors must qualify as authors, and all those who qualify must be explicitly named.

Three basic criteria must be met collectively to be recognized as an author:

  1. a) Substantial contribution to the conception and design, data acquisition, analysis and interpretation of the study.

  2. b) Drafting or revision of the intellectual content.

  3. c) Approval of the final version.

The order of authorship should be a joint decision of the co-authors. There are three types of authorship that are considered unacceptable: "ghost" authors, who contribute substantially but are not acknowledged (often paid by commercial sponsors); "invited" authors, who make no discernible contribution but are named to increase the chances of publication; and "honorary" authorships, which are based only on a tenuous affiliation with a study.

Recommendations:

  • Before starting the research, it is recommended to document the role and the way in which the authorship of each researcher will be acknowledged.

  • Do not lie about a person's participation in the research or publication, if his or her contribution is considered "substantial" authorship is justified, either as an author or collaborator.

  • Authorship should not be assigned without the person's consent.

  • All persons named as authors must qualify as authors, and all those who qualify must

    be listed as authors or contributors.

• Some groups list authors alphabetically, sometimes with a note to explain that all authors made equal contributions to the study and publication.

Everyone associated with the publication acknowledges and subscribes to the ethical

principles of academic research and the publication of its results. The journal adheres in all

its scope to actively seek to avoid malpractices that may arise from works that are partially

or totally related to falsification, manipulation, fabrication of results; misappropriation or

insufficient crediting of texts whose authorship belongs to another author and duplicate

publications.

The journal miradas expresses its commitment to the respect and integrity of the published works. For this reason, manuscripts that are identified as plagiarism or fraudulent content will not be published, it reserves the right to retract the publication of those articles that, after publication, are shown to present errors in good faith, or committed fraud or scientific malpractice. This decision will be based on "Retraction Guidelines: https://publicationethics.org/retraction-guidelines" (COPE, 2019). If the error is minor, it can be rectified by an editorial correction note or an erratum. Authors also have the possibility of requesting a retraction of publication when they discover that their work contains serious errors. In all cases, the electronic version will be retained and warnings will be made clearly and unequivocally.

Process for Identifying and Addressing Allegations of Research Misconduct

Readers, authors and reviewers may raise complaints and/or warnings when they suspect or have evidence of non-compliance with our ethical guidelines at any stage of the editorial process. This includes, but is not limited to:

  • Plagiarism.

  • Self-plagiarism or recycling of previously published works.

  • Authorship and contribution disputes.

  • Manipulation in the evaluation process.

  • Conflicts of interest.

The editorial team will be in charge of receiving complaints from readers, authors and/or evaluators following the following process, according to COPE guidelines:

  1. The reader will send his complaint in writing by e-mail to miradas@utp.edu.co with the corresponding proofs.

  2. The editorial team will confirm receipt of the claim within five (5) working days and will evaluate the content of the claim, as well as the evidence provided. For claims

related to plagiarism, the documents will be submitted to a verification of

coincidences with iThenticate software.

  1. In the event that an activity is found that violates the journal's ethics policy by the

    author, the editorial team will notify in writing and request the corresponding explanations, granting a period of no more than fifteen (15) working days to receive a response.

  2. Once the author's response has been received, the editorial team will make a decision:

  1. In the event that during the editing process a minor case of coincidence with other work or own, it can be clarified that this was the result of human error and not an act of bad faith: the journal may request the correction of the document to the authors when it is identified that there was no act of bad faith.

  2. In case the author clarifies the situation: inform the reader who made the complaint about the arguments expressed by the author and thank him/her for his/her interest in the transparency of the publication.

  3. In case of finding a conscious and bad faith action that violates the ethics policy of the magazine by the author: remove the article in question and publicly report the situation with a message in the "Notices" section of the magazine, as well as in social networks.

Likewise, he/she will be in charge of making a final decision taking into account all parties involved. In the event that the situation to be studied involves any of the members of the team or the editorial committee, the person will be removed from the process until its completion.