Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement

 

OPEN ACCESS POLICY

This journal offers readers Open Access to its content in favor of free and global exchange of knowledge. It is edited in Spanish in print (ISSN 1025-9945) and digital (e-ISSN 1993-4904) versions.

Contratexto is a non-profit project, we do not have any Article Processing Charges (APCs) for authors.

 

CODE OF ETHICS   

Good practice and ethics guidelines for Contratexto, based upon the recommendations of the Committee on Publications Ethics (COPE).

 

AUTHOR RESPONSIBILITIES:

Contratexto requests authors comply to the following practices:

  • The journal complies with the current citation manual of the American Psychological Association (APA). The reference list should only include the works cited in text, either as an exact quotation or paraphrase. Quotations should correspond with the reference list, and vice versa.
  • Most referenced sources must be current or relevant.
  • The originality and contribution of the text should be emphasized in most or all of the following dimensions: theoretical, contextual, methodological and in results.
  • Cited sources published by the authors must be adequately referenced and quoted. In order to protect the neutrality of the review process, the author should present the source excluding its date and title within the text and in the final reference list, for example:

If the author is; 

Badiou, A. (2017). Gilles Deleuze, The Fold: Leibniz and the Baroque 1. In Gilles Deleuze and the theater of philosophy. London: Routledge, pp. 51-69.

Replace with;

Author.

It is the author’s responsibility to update this information if their text is approved for publication.

  • In case of multiple authorship, the author's hierarchy should be coordinated in advance. It is the corresponding author’s responsibility to point out the agreed designation order of authorship. 
  • Every author is responsible for the totality of their text. If a case of plagiarism or contest for authorship rights arose, every author will be held accountable until proven otherwise. Actions following reprehensible practices such as the previously described will be detailed in the next section.
  • Any and all acknowledgements or recognition for research collaborators should be consigned as a footnote. If this compromises the review neutrality, it is the author's responsibility to inform the editors during submission, omit this information and reincorporate it later if the work were to be approved for publication.
  • Authors must report any and all funding sources for their research, if this were to be the case. We remind authors that Contratexto has no Article Processing Charges (APCs), as we operate as a non-profit publication funded solely by our publishing institution.
  • Authors should avoid contacting editors directly, unless there was a request for information on the review process. It is our editorial policy that any communication should be kept formal. The editorial team is open to criticism, as it may improve our services to the authors. Any hostile, derogatory or personal judgements are not allowed. The official channel for communication is the journal’s e-mail: [email protected].

 

Contratexto considers the following as reprehensible practices:

  • Plagiarism. The partial, complete or fragmented publication of ideas created by others and published in other media (academic journals or any other media) without proper quotation and reference.
  • Self-plagiarism. Partial or total re-edition of texts made by the author and published in other media (academic journals or any other media) without proper quotation and reference.
  • Plagiarism of graphic material. Reproduction of any medium of graphical expression lacking the necessary permissions for publication. This applies even if the graphical material was elaborated by the authors and published in other media. Graphical material comprises: photographs, design, drawings, blueprints, diagrams, tables or statistics graphics.
  • Multiple submissions. Submitting the same article to other academic journals simultaneously or in parallel during the review and editorial process in Contratexto.
  • Falsification of data. The application of fraudulent methodological procedures that may tamper with primary sources. Failure in verifying the reliability of the primary sources (e.g.: surveys or interviews made by a third party) that the author uses as secondary sources is reprehensible.
  • Inadequate data handling. Data or sources results are based on are inaccessible. Authors don’t take responsibility for securing a data repository and the guaranteeing of personal data protection. Data employed in the research has not been consented by the participants.
  • Authorship rights infringement. Authorship is not recognized to those that made a significant intellectual contribution to the text: conceptualization, planification, organization and research design, interpretation of findings, editing, formulation or writing. Lack of adequate author hierarchy. In case of authorship disputes, the journal reserves its right to contact the institution or institutions where the disputants are affiliated in order to clear the situation. Articles that present ghost, invitation or gift authorship will be retracted[1].
  • Conflict of interest. Authors who have economical, professional or any other kind of conditioning that may tamper with the neutrality and handling of data and the formulation of results.

 

ACTIONS AGAINST REPREHENSIBLE PRACTICES (AUTHORS)

If any of the reprehensible situations mentioned above were to happen, the editorial team will contact those involved (including their academic institution) and will request the necessary information in order to clarify the issue. It is the authors responsibility to facilitate the clarifying information. Each case will be treated individually, but taking into account the guidelines proposed by the Committee on Publications Ethics (COPE).

  • If the article in question were to be in a review process, the process would be suspended until the events are cleared out. Once the clarifying information of the parties involved is delivered, the editorial team will take the decision to either cancel or continue with the review process.
  • If the article in question were to be published, this would be retracted temporarily from the digital version of the journal until the events are cleared out. Once the clarifying information of the parties involved is delivered, the editorial team will take the decision to either retract the article permanently or to maintain it on the digital version of the journal, pointing out the corresponding actions in the next print number. No retraction of published articles will be done without notice.

The decision of the editorial team is not reversible.

 

REVIEWER RESPONSIBILITIES

Contratexto requests reviewers comply with the following ethical considerations:

  • Conflict of interest. Abstain to review an article if you consider that there is any type of conditioning that may tamper with the evaluation, whether it was economical, professional or any other kind.
  • Lack of experience. Inform the editorial team if you consider that you do not meet the necessary or sufficient academic experience to review the contents of an article.
  • Neutrality. Desist reviewing if you identify the author or one of the authors. Likewise, this applies if you have been involved in any way in the research from which the article is derived.
  • Dedication. Guarantee the time to carry out a methodical, rigorous and fair revision of the article. During the review process, the article is in an embargo period, which means that authors, reviewers and editors cannot disclose its contents.
  • Collaboration and contribution. Be assertive and constructive in your verdict. No hostile or derogatory expressions and personal judgments are allowed. Judgments based on nationality, religion, gender and other characteristics inferred from the article must be avoided.
  • Confidentiality. You may not disclose or discuss with others or in public contexts the contents of the review. You may not use the content of the article for personal or institutional use. The review process is confidential before, during and after it is done.
  • Recommendations for authors. Avoid recommendations that may affect the neutrality and confidentiality of the review process. Recommending your own work is expressly forbidden. As peer-reviewing is an act of scientific collaboration, we strongly encourage recommendations that allow an improvement of an article without affecting the anonymity of the evaluation.  
  • Ethical aspects. Include in your verdict any ethical irregularities that you encounter: plagiarism, self-plagiarism, falsification of sources, inadequate data handling or any other issue you may deem reprehensible.

  

ACTIONS AGAINST REPREHENSIBLE PRACTICES (REVIEWERS) 

If reviewers do not comply with responsibilities mentioned above, the editorial team will contact the reviewer and will request the necessary information in order to clarify the issue. It is the reviewer responsibility to facilitate the clarifying information. Sanctions go from censoring conflicting parts of the reviewer’s opinion to nullifying and vetoing the reviewer. Each case will be treated individually, but taking into account the guidelines proposed by the Committee on Publications Ethics (COPE).

  • Conflict of interest. If conflict of interest is not declared and found out, the reviewer will be vetoed from participating with the journal. Any evaluations made will be nullified immediately. Likewise, the emitted certification of review will be destroyed.
  • Neutrality. If neutrality was compromised and bias is evident, the editorial team will contact the reviewer to clarify the issue.
  • Deadlines. If the reviewer is not able to comply with deadlines, they should inform us of it. Extension of a deadline is subject to the quantity and need for reviewer opinion in an article.
    • If the article in question already has enough reviews by the time the reviewer asks for an extension, their extension will not be approved.
    • Likewise, if a reviewer’s opinion is sent to us after the set date, we reserve the right not to use it in case we have already completed the process with a substitute reviewer.
  • Derogative or judgmental commentary. Reviewers should avoid any biased language. In the event of this happening, the following outcomes may take place:
    • The editorial team will deliberate and contact the reviewer for clarification. If the conflicting parts are deemed too strongly biased, the opinion will be nullified.
    • The editorial team may edit parts of the reviewer’s opinion to maintain anonymity and neutrality.



JOINT EDITOR AND EDITORIAL TEAM RESPONSIBILITIES

Contratexto is committed to undertake the following practices:

  • Preliminary review. The preliminary review is conducted by the editorial team and the adjunct editors. It is based on our editorial policies, with no biases or constraints that may tamper with neutrality.
  • Plagiarism.  Before initiating the reception and reviewing process, we submit the manuscripts to an anti-plagiarism software. The editorial team is committed to analyze the software’s report thoroughly. Any article that surpasses 20% coincidences will be dismissed from the review process. The editors pledge to maintain confidentiality on this evaluation. If, after publication of a text, evidence arose indicating plagiarism conducted in it, the text will be subject to retraction in compliance with COPE’s Retraction Guidelines.
  • Reviewer selection. Guaranteeing the selection of ideal reviewers that evaluate submissions critically, contributing towards the article’s improvement.
  • Confidentiality. Non disclosure of the editorial processes taking place or finished.
  • Conflict of interest. Articles submitted for reviewing will not be used for personal or institutional research, unless consented.
  • Open Access. As a non-profit publication funded solely by our publishing institution, we have no Article Processing Charges (APCs) for authors, no financial compensation is given to peer reviewers and every past and present issues are fully available for the general public.
  • Responsibility. The editorial team and the adjunct editors are responsible for all of the published material; likewise, they will ensure maximum transparency and the complete and honest report of the editorial process.
  • Erratum and corrigendum. Any mistake or change request in online published articles may be notified to the editorial team, who will determine the pertinence of the request and take action. The journal will issue an erratum if an author is responsible for an error; a corrigendum will be issued if the journal is responsible for an error.
  • Retraction and expressions of concern. The editorial team reserves retractions to cases where findings or conclusions are seriously flawed and cannot be relied upon or any other case indicated before in this text and in COPE’s Retraction Guidelines. Minor edits stemming from proofreading or typesetting may be made, but any major changes to a text will be executed in compliance with COPE’s Retraction Guidelines.
  • Authorship Rights. Contratexto is published under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0), further information can be found here.
  • Archiving. Our publishing institution archives the journal with CLOCKSS and LOCKSS. In addition, self-archive is encouraged, authors are allowed to reuse their published works in any way with the requisite of recognizing its initial publication in our journal.

 

REFERENCES

Kleinert, S., and 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. In Mayer, T. y Steneck, N. (Eds.), Promoting Research Integrity in a Global Environment. Imperial College Press / World Scientific Publishing, (pp 317-28). https://publicationethics.org/files/International%20standard_editors_for%20website_11_Nov_2011.pdf

____________________

[1] According to the COPE (Kleinert and Wager, 2011, p.4), ghost authorship refers to those who meet authorship criteria and are not regarded as authors. Gift authorship refers to those who do not meet authorship criteria and are listed as authors in exchange for a payment or in return for a favor.  Invitation authorship refers to those who do not meet authorship criteria, but are listed as authors because of their supposed reputation or influence.