Publishing ethics

Persona subscribes to the international standards for research and publications consigned in section 8 of the Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct of the American Psychological Association (APA), as well as the Core Practices of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

Taking into account the guidelines mentioned, Persona considers the following practices necessary:

  • Institutional Approval: When required, institutional approval must be obtained from the institution where the research is conducted and follow established agreements.
  • Ethical Viability: Research submitted to Persona must have approval from an ethics committee, except in cases where, by their nature, such approval is not required (essay, systematic review, meta-analysis, among others).
  • Informed Consent and Assent: The decision to participate in research is made freely based on all necessary information that could affect participation (benefits, risks, duration, among others). In the case of minors, in addition to informed consent from responsible adults, it is necessary to obtain informed assent from minors adapted to their developmental characteristics. Exceptional situations (for example, see APA ethics code, article 8.05) must be clearly substantiated in the work.
  • Avoiding Excessive Incentives: Avoid using excessive incentives, financial or otherwise, if these may coerce or distort research participation.
  • Avoiding Deception-Based Procedures: Exceptionally, and in accordance with international standards, deception could be used only if alternative procedures are not possible and the research impact allows justifying the use of such a procedure. In these cases, participants must be informed about the use of such a procedure as soon as possible, always before finalizing data collection. Participants must also be allowed to withdraw the use of their data if they consider it appropriate.
  • Informing about Study Nature, Results, and Conclusions (Debriefing): Opportunities must be provided for participants to have adequate information about the research conducted, unless the need to delay or withhold information can be substantiated. In such cases, all necessary measures must be taken to minimize the possibility of harm. If research procedures have generated any type of damage to a participant, all reasonable measures must be taken to minimize it.
  • Use and Care of Animals in Research: When research requires the use of animals, they must be treated respecting national and international regulations, caring for their health and comfort. In this framework, all reasonable efforts must be made to minimize discomfort, diseases, infections, or pain. Stress, deprivation, or pain will only be used if alternative means do not exist and the use of such procedures can be substantiated based on the research impact.
  • Publication Credits: Each and every author of a work is responsible for the totality of the work. This includes, in the case of multiple authorship, having coordinated the order of presentation of the authors, which must be followed by the author managing the editorial process.

 

Taking into account the guidelines mentioned, Persona considers the following practices reprehensible:

  • Plagiarism: Complete, partial, or fragmented publication of other authors' ideas published in other media (academic journals or any other dissemination medium) without proper reference in the text and at the end of the article.
  • Self-Plagiarism: Re-editing partial or total texts of one's own authorship published in other media (academic journals or any other dissemination medium) without proper reference in the text and at the end of the article.
  • Plagiarism and Self-Plagiarism of Graphic Material: Reproduction of any form of graphic expression without the necessary permissions for publication. This also applies to cases where the graphic material was created by the authors and published in another medium. Graphic material includes: photographs, designs, drawings, plans, statistical tables and graphs, or diagrams.
  • Multiple Submissions: Submitting the same article to other academic journals simultaneously or in parallel during the peer review and publication editing process.
  • Data Falsification: Application of fraudulent methodological procedures or falsifying primary sources. Likewise, the lack of verification and reliability of primary sources (for example, surveys or interviews conducted by third parties) that the author uses as secondary sources is reprehensible.
  • Inadequate Data Handling: Data or sources on which results are based are not accessible. Authors do not take responsibility for recording a repository with the data and adequate protection of personal data. The data used in the research were not consented to by participants.
  • Violation of Authorship Rights: Not recognizing as authors of the article those who made a significant intellectual contribution to the text quality: development of conceptualizations, planning, organization and research design, interpretation of findings, and writing. Lack of appropriate author hierarchy. In case of authorship disputes, the journal reserves the right to contact the institution(s) to which the authors are affiliated to clarify the situation. Presenting articles with ghost, invited, or gifted authorship (Kleinert and Wager, 2011).
  • Conflicts of Interest: Authors have economic, professional, or other types of conditions that affect the treatment and neutrality of data and the formulation of results.

 

ACTIONS AGAINST REPREHENSIBLE PRACTICES (AUTHORS)

If any situation arises that questions the ethical principles mentioned above, the editorial team will communicate with those involved (including the academic institution to which they belong) and request information that allows clarifying the situation. It is the authors' responsibility to facilitate clarifying information. Each case will be treated individually, but taking into account the guidelines proposed by the Committee on Publications Ethics (COPE).

 

  • If the questioned article is in the peer review process, it will be suspended until the facts are clarified. Once clarifying information is received from the involved parties, the editorial team will decide to cancel or continue the review process.
  • If the questioned article has been published, it will be temporarily withdrawn from the digital version of the journal until the facts are clarified. Once clarifying information is received from the involved parties, the editorial team will decide whether to definitively withdraw the article's publication or maintain it online and indicate the corresponding actions in the next printed issue. No retraction of already published articles will be made without prior notice.

 

The editorial team's decision is final.

 

REVIEWERS' COMMITMENTS

 

Persona requests that reviewers comply with the following ethical considerations:

 

  • Conflict of Interest: Abstain from evaluating an article if they consider that there is any economic, professional, or other type of conditioning that influences the evaluation.
  • Lack of Experience: Inform the editorial team if they consider that they do not have sufficient academic and scientific experience to evaluate the article's content.
  • Neutrality and Impartiality: Withdraw from the evaluation if the author or any of the authors are identified. Similarly, this applies if they have been involved in the research from which the work derives, either as informants, advisors, or evaluators.
  • Dedication: Guarantee the time to carry out a methodical, rigorous, and fair review of the article. They must remember that during the peer review process, the article is under embargo and authors, reviewers, and editors cannot disseminate its contents.
  • Collaboration and Contribution: Substantiate their assessments assertively and constructively. Hostile, derogatory, or personal judgments are not admitted. They will avoid making judgments based on nationality, religion, gender, and other characteristics inferred from the article.
  • Confidentiality: Do not disseminate or discuss the evaluation contents with other people or in public contexts, nor use the article's content for personal or institutional purposes. The peer review is confidential before, during, and after the process.
  • Recommendations to Authors: Avoid recommendations that affect the neutrality and confidentiality of the peer review process. It is expressly prohibited to recommend that evaluated authors reference the scientific production of the reviewers. Since the evaluation is an act of scientific collaboration, recommendations that allow improvement of the article will be valued without affecting the anonymity of the evaluation.
  • Ethical Aspects: Report in their assessment if they find ethical irregularities in the research: plagiarism, self-plagiarism, falsification of sources, failures in data handling, and omissions in personal data protection.

 

ACTIONS AGAINST REPREHENSIBLE PRACTICES (REVIEWERS)

If any reviewer fails to meet the responsibilities mentioned above, the editorial team will communicate with the reviewer and request the necessary information to clarify the problem. It is the reviewer's responsibility to facilitate clarifying information. Sanctions range from censuring conflicting excerpts from the reviewer's assessment to canceling and vetoing the reviewer. Each case will be treated individually, but taking into account the guidelines proposed by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

  • Conflict of Interest: If an undeclared conflict of interest is discovered, the reviewer cannot participate in the journal. Any evaluation performed will be immediately annulled. The review certification will also be destroyed.
  • Neutrality: If neutrality is compromised and bias is evident, the editorial team will communicate with the reviewer to clarify the problem.
  • Deadlines: If the reviewer cannot meet the deadlines, they must inform the editorial team. Deadline extension is subject to the number and need for review of an article.
    • If the article already has sufficient reviews when the reviewer requests an extension, it will not be approved.
    • Likewise, if a reviewer sends the assessment after the established date, the editorial team reserves the right not to use it if the process has already been completed with a substitute reviewer.
  • Pejorative or Prejudiced Comments: Reviewers must avoid any biased language. If this occurs, the following actions will be taken:
    • The editorial team may edit parts of the reviewer's opinion to maintain anonymity and neutrality.
    • The editorial team will deliberate and contact the reviewer for clarifications. If the conflicting parts are considered too biased, the opinion will be annulled.

 

The editorial team's decisions are final.

 

COMMITMENT OF THE EDITORIAL TEAM AND ASSOCIATE EDITORS

 

  • Preliminary Evaluation: The preliminary evaluation conducted by the editorial team and associate editors will be based on the journal's editorial policy without any other conditioning such as the authors' nationality, gender, ethnic origin, religion, or political opinion.
  • Plagiarism: Before initiating the reception and evaluation process, submit manuscripts to plagiarism software review. The editorial team commits to analyzing the software report in detail. Any article exceeding 20% similarity will be dismissed from the peer review process and communicated to the authors. Editors commit to maintaining confidentiality about this evaluation. If evidence of plagiarism emerges after a text's publication, the text will be subject to retraction according to COPE retraction guidelines.
  • Reviewer Selection: Ensure the selection of suitable reviewers who critically evaluate the work and contribute to the article's improvement.
  • Confidentiality: Do not disseminate the editorial processes carried out.
  • Conflict of Interest: Do not use contents of submitted articles in their own research without authors' consent.
  • Responsibility: The editorial team and editors are responsible for all published material; they will also ensure maximum transparency and complete and honest reporting of the editorial process.
  • Open Access: As a non-profit publication funded solely by our editorial institution, we have no article processing charges (APC) for authors, no financial compensation is provided to reviewers, and all past and present issues are completely available to the general public.
  • Errata and Corrections: Any errors or change requests in online published articles must be communicated to the editorial team, which will determine the appropriateness of the request. If necessary, the journal will issue an erratum.
  • Copyright: Persona is published under a 4.0 International Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0); more information can be found at the following link: https://revistas.ulima.edu.pe/index.php/contratexto/about/submissions
  • Archiving: Our editorial institution archives the journal on its own servers. Additionally, self-archiving is encouraged, and authors are allowed to reuse their published works in any form with the requirement of recognizing their initial publication in our journal.

 

References

Kleinert, S., y Wager, E. (2011). Responsible research publication: international standards for editors. A position statement developed at the 2nd World Conference on Research Integrity, Singapore, July 22-24, 2010. En T. Mayer & N. Steneck (Eds.), Promoting research integrity in a global environment (pp. 317-28). Imperial College Press, World Scientific Publishing. https://publicationethics.org/files/International%20standard_editors_for%20website_11_Nov_2011.pdf

POLICY ON THE USE OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE 

Persona adheres to the position of organizations such as the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), recognizing that artificial intelligence (AI) tools cannot be listed as authors of an article. Accordingly, any use of AI must be explicitly disclosed, either in the Methodology section or any other relevant part of the manuscript. This disclosure should specify which AI tool was used, where it was applied in the work, and how it was used.
Since authorship and responsibility lie solely with the individuals who produce the work, it is their duty to verify and validate any content generated with the assistance of AI.

Last update: 10/02/23