Publication Ethics

CODE OF ETHICS

This Code aims to ensure transparency in the processes of review, editing, and publication of all articles, as well as to guide authors, the evaluation team, the editorial committee, the academic community, and the general public in good publication practices. It is based on the principles of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

The editorial committee of Ingeniería Industrial (Industrial Engineering) will ensure that the editor, evaluation team, and authors uphold ethical principles throughout the editorial process.

Authors’ Commitments:

Authors are required to adhere to the following practices:

  • Definition of authorship: Authors are those who make a significant intellectual contribution to the work, including conceptualization, planning, organization, research design, data collection, analysis, interpretation of results, and manuscript preparation (COPE, 2020). All listed authors share responsibility for the entire submitted manuscript. In cases of plagiarism or copyright disputes, all authors will be held accountable.
  • Order of authorship: When authorship is shared, the corresponding author must coordinate and agree in advance on the order of co-authors. It is the corresponding author’s responsibility to ensure that the agreed-upon order is indicated correctly.
  • Duplicate publication: Authors must not publish manuscripts substantially describing the same research in more than one journal. Submitting the same manuscript to multiple journals simultaneously constitutes unethical and unacceptable conduct. Similarly, previously published articles should not be resubmitted to another journal.
  • Acknowledgments: Authors should acknowledge and thank research collaborators. If acknowledgments could compromise the neutrality of peer review, the information should be omitted at submission and included only in the final version if the article is accepted for publication.
  • Funding and conflicts of interest: Authors must disclose the sources of research funding at the time of submission, including this information in a footnote. Any potential conflicts of interest—financial or otherwise—that could influence the results or interpretation of the work must be declared in the manuscript. Examples include employment, consultancies, stock ownership, fees, testimony as a paid expert, patent applications or registrations, and grants or other forms of funding. Such conflicts should be disclosed in the cover letter upon initial submission.
  • Errors in published work: If an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in their published work, they are obligated to notify the editor or publisher promptly and cooperate in retracting or correcting the article. If the editor learns from a third party that a published work contains an error, the author must immediately retract or correct the work or provide evidence supporting its accuracy.
  • References: The final reference list must include only those sources cited in the text, whether directly or indirectly. Direct quotations must match the reference list, and vice versa.
  • Author contributions: The contributions of each author must be specified at the end of the article according to the CRediT (Contributor Roles Taxonomy) system.
  • Communication: All communication between authors and the editor will be conducted formally, through the Editorial Board. Hostile, derogatory expressions or personal judgments will not be tolerated.
  • Use of artificial intelligence (AI):
    Authors must explicitly declare the use of AI tools at any stage of research or manuscript preparation. Authors remain fully responsible for the content and originality of their work, regardless of AI assistance. The use of AI should be limited to specific functions, such as text editing, and must not include generating academic content or original ideas.
  • Authors must avoid submitting manuscripts that are primarily AI-generated without significant human oversight. When AI is used, a statement detailing its role and contribution must be included in the methods or acknowledgments section. Submissions with AI-generated content produced without human supervision will be rejected, and authors may face penalties depending on the severity of the violation, as this undermines academic integrity. The journal reserves the right to verify content origin, including reviewing the author’s academic background and institutional affiliation. Reviewers and editors are also advised to remain vigilant for indicators of AI-generated text and to apply professional judgment accordingly.
  • Ultimately, editorial decisions will be based on the quality and the authenticity of the manuscript. Authors without prior publications or whose submissions fall outside their area of expertise may be subject to additional scrutiny. Transparency in writing and honesty in the use of AI technologies are essential to maintaining the quality and reliability of scientific research.

The journal considers the following to be reprehensible practices:

  • Plagiarism: The full, partial, or fragmented use of ideas published by other authors in any medium (academic journals or other outlets) without proper citation in the text and reference list.
  • Self-plagiarism: Reusing one’s own previously published work, in whole or in part, in any medium, without appropriate citation in the text and reference list.
  • Plagiarism and self-plagiarism of graphic material: Graphic material includes photographs, designs, drawings, plans, tables, statistical charts, or diagrams. The reproduction of such material without the required permissions is prohibited, including cases in which the material was created by the authors and published elsewhere.
  • Duplicate submission: The simultaneous submission of the same article to multiple journals.
  • Data falsification: Using fraudulent methodological procedures, fabrication, falsification, or arbitrary modification of primary sources or results. This also includes reliance on unverified or unreliable primary sources when used as secondary sources (e.g., surveys or interviews conducted by other authors).
  • Inappropriate data processing: Using data without the participants’ consent, basing results on data or sources that are not publicly accessible, failing to reference the repository where data are stored, or not ensuring adequate protection of personal data.
  • Infringement of authorship rights: Failure to recognize as authors those who made a significant intellectual contribution to the work (e.g., conceptualization, planning, research design, data collection, analysis, interpretation of findings, or manuscript writing).
  • Improper authorship attribution: Articles involving ghost authorship, guest authorship, or gift authorship will be withdrawn.
  • Conflicts of interest: Situations in which authors have financial, professional, or other conditions that compromise the neutrality of the data analysis or the interpretation of results.

Actions Against Reprehensible Practices (Authors)

If any of the above violations of ethical principles arise, the editorial team will contact the parties involved—including the relevant academic institution—and request clarifying information, which must be provided. Each case will be handled individually, in accordance with the COPE guidelines.

  • During peer review: If the article is under review, the process will be suspended until the matter is clarified. After reviewing the information provided, the editorial team will decide whether to cancel or continue the review process.
  • After publication: If the article has already been published, it will be temporarily removed from the online version of the journal while the facts are being clarified. Once the information is reviewed, the editorial team will decide whether to withdraw the article permanently or reinstate it in the online archive. In either case, the journal will indicate the corresponding actions in the next issue. No article will be retracted without prior notice.

The decision of the editorial team is final.

PEER REVIEWERS’ COMMITMENTS:

Reviewers are expected to adhere to the following ethical standards:

  • Avoiding conflicts of interest: Reviewers must decline to evaluate a manuscript if financial, professional, or personal circumstances can influence their judgment.
  • Communicating lack of expertise: Reviewers should inform the editorial team if they lack sufficient academic or scientific expertise to evaluate the manuscript’s content.
  • Neutrality and impartiality: Reviewers must withdraw from the process if they recognize the author(s) or if they were involved in the research (e.g., as an informant, adviser, or collaborator).
  • Dedication: Reviewers should allocate sufficient time to provide a thorough, rigorous, and fair assessment. During the review process, the manuscript is under embargo, and authors, reviewers, and editors must not disclose its content.
  • Constructive feedback: Clear, constructive, and respectful arguments should support reviews. Hostile, derogatory remarks or personal judgments are unacceptable. Reviews must not be influenced by the author’s nationality, religion, gender, or other inferred characteristics.
  • Confidentiality: Reviewers must not share, discuss, or use manuscript content for personal or institutional purposes. Confidentiality must be maintained before, during, and after the review process.
  • Recommendations to authors: Suggestions must not compromise the neutrality or confidentiality of the review process. Reviewers are expressly forbidden from requesting that authors cite their own work. As peer review is an act of scholarly collaboration, recommendations should focus solely on improving the manuscript while preserving reviewer anonymity.
  • Ethical concerns: Reviewers should report any suspected ethical violations, such as plagiarism, self-plagiarism, falsification of data, misuse of sources, or failure to protect personal data.

ACTIONS AGAINST UNETHICAL PEER REVIEW PRACTICES

If reviewers fail to comply with these responsibilities, the editorial team will contact them to request clarification. Reviewers are responsible for providing explanatory information. Sanctions may include removing biased excerpts, annulling the review, or permanently vetoing the reviewer. Each case will be handled individually, in accordance with the COPE guidelines.

  • Conflict of interest: If an undeclared conflict of interest is discovered, the reviewer will be disqualified from further participation in the journal. Any completed review will be voided, and any certification of review will be revoked.
  • Neutrality: If bias is evident and neutrality compromised, the editorial team will remove the reviewer from the process and annul their evaluation. Any completed review will be voided, and any certification of review will be revoked.
  • Deadlines: Reviewers unable to meet deadlines must promptly inform the editor. Deadline extensions may be granted depending on the importance of the review.
    • However, if sufficient reviews have already been received, extensions will not be granted.
    • If a late review is submitted after the process has been completed with substitute reviewers, it will not be considered.
  • Inappropriate comments: Reviewers must avoid prejudiced or harmful language. If such language occurs, the editorial team will deliberate and request clarification from the reviewer. If the comments are found to be excessively biased, the review will be dismissed. To ensure fairness and anonymity, the editorial team may edit parts of the review.

 

COMMITMENT OF THE EDITORIAL TEAM AND THE DEPUTY EDITORS:

The journal is committed to upholding the following practices:

  • Evaluation: Manuscripts will be evaluated by the editorial team and deputy editors exclusively according to the journal’s publication criteria, without discrimination based on nationality, gender, ethnic origin, religion, or political beliefs of the authors.
  • Anti-plagiarism: Before initiating the review process, all manuscripts will be screened using the Turnitin plagiarism detection software (see process). Any manuscript with more than 20% similarity will be rejected, and the authors will be informed. The editorial team will maintain confidentiality regarding the results of this evaluation. If evidence of plagiarism is discovered after publication, the article will be subject to retraction in accordance with the COPE Retraction Guidelines.
  • Reviewer selection: The editorial team will ensure the selection of qualified reviewers who can provide critical, constructive feedback and contribute to the improvement of the manuscript.
  • Confidentiality: Editorial processes will be conducted confidentially, and no information will be disclosed to unauthorized parties.
  • Avoiding conflicts of interest: Editors will not use the content of submitted manuscripts in their research without the authors’ consent.
  • Responsibility: The editorial team and editors are responsible for all published material and will ensure maximum transparency, as well as complete and honest reporting of the editorial process.
  • Open access: The journal provides free and open access to all its content based on the principle that making research publicly available fosters a greater global exchange of knowledge. All articles are published under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY).
  • Errata and corrections: Errors or requests for changes in published articles must be communicated to the editorial team, which will assess their validity.
    • An erratum will be issued if the error is the author’s responsibility; a corrigendum will be issued if the error is the responsibility of the journal.
  • Retractions and expressions of concern: Ingeniería Industrial adheres to the COPE Retraction Guidelines. Retraction is warranted when published results are shown to be unreliable because of misconduct (e.g., data fabrication) or inadvertent errors that compromise validity. Retraction will also be applied in cases of plagiarism, redundant publication, or other breaches of ethical standards. Retractions will be conducted transparently, with the authors informed and given the opportunity to respond before a final decision is made. The retraction notice will be officially published, and the article will remain in the archive clearly marked as “Retracted” to preserve the integrity of the scientific record. Authors are reminded that maintaining the quality and ethical standards of published research is a shared responsibility. Concerns regarding potential retractions may be directed to the editorial team for evaluation. The purpose of these measures is to safeguard confidence in the journal’s content and the scientific community as a whole. Minor edits, such as those stemming from proofreading or typesetting, may be made without formal notice; however, substantive changes will follow the COPE guidelines.
  • Copyright: Once an article is accepted for publication, authors must submit a signed Letter of Assignment of Rights and Declaration of Originality, confirming that the manuscript has not been published or accepted elsewhere.
  • Preservation: The publishing institution performs regular backups of the journal’s platform and its content on secure servers to ensure long-term preservation.

Click to download the flow of the anti-plagiarism editorial process

 

 

References:

COPE. (2020). Documento de debate de COPE: ¿Qué constituye una autoría? — Spanish. https://doi.org/10.24318/cope.2019.3.4 Version 2: July 2020.

Text updated on December 5, 2024.