Ethics Practice in the Journal

Ethics Practice in the Journal

For UPEL-IPB EDUCARE Journal it is important to guarantee ethics in every publication. This is why the entire editorial board as well as the referees and the authors adhere to acting following the regulations of good practice to guarantee the neatness of each of our publications. In this sense, EDUCARE UPEL IPB follows the guidelines and international standards for editors and authors of the Publications Ethics Committee (COPE).

EDUCARE UPEL IPB identifies as violations of publication ethics the following:

Types of infractions:

  1. Fraud (Falsification or fabrication of information): Refers to the alteration or omissions of results, as well as the use of non-existent information that can trigger a wrong interpretation.
  2. Plagiarism: When the author assumes information from another article and presents it as his own. It occurs when the original author of the information is omitted in a citation.
  3. Manipulation of citations: to change the date of publication of the information, to change fragments that lead to misinterpretations.
  4. Violation of privacy: when the name or face of those who contributed to the research is revealed without consent.
  5. Repeated publications: making use of stratagems such as changing the title of the publication, changing part of the body of the article, or changing the language of the article among others.

Given some of the behaviors already stated, the editorial board of UPEL IPB EDUCARE Journal takes the attribution of verifying the manuscript and applying a review filter in the first instance using technological tools such as Google or Plagiarisma to verify whether or not there are similarities with texts previously published or any other element that violates good ethical practice and may tarnish the possible publication. In case the document can be corrected, correspondence is sent to the author to make the adjustments, thus allowing them to make a new submission. Otherwise, through the OJS system, the author will be given the verdict of not accepted (for more information, read the plagiarism detection policies).

Principles of Identification and Prevention of Misconduct

  1. Members of the writing committee and the scientific committee will not encourage misconduct of any kind or knowingly allow such misconduct to occur.
  2. The members of the editorial committee and the international scientist will try to prevent misconduct by informing authors and reviewers of the ethical behavior required from them.
  3. Reviewers and members of the scientific and editorial committees will be asked to be aware of all types of misconduct to identify documents in which research misconduct of any kind has occurred or appears to have occurred and process complaints accordingly.
  4. In case of misconduct, the magazine editor is responsible for solving the problem. He or she may work with members of the editorial board and scientific committee, peer reviewers, and subject matter experts.
  5. The problem must be documented accordingly. All factual questions must be documented: who, what, when, where, why. All relevant documents should be kept, in particular the articles at issue.
  6. The journal editor will contact the author. In this way, the author is allowed to respond or comment on the complaint, allegation, or dispute.
  7. If the author has occurred or it seems that misconduct has occurred, or in the case of the necessary corrections, the editorial committee will deal with the different cases following the recommendations of the COPE.
  8. Great care will be taken to distinguish cases of honest human mistake from deliberate intent to defraud.
  9. The editorial board will consider withdrawing a post in the event of misconduct, or issuing a note in the event of inconclusive evidence of misconduct, or requesting the correction of the false segment.

Authors’ Responsibilities

  1. The texts submitted for publication must be the result of original and unpublished research. They must 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 defended in the work.
  2. The author (s) must be aware of and refrain from engaging in scientific misconduct and violating the ethics of publication.
  3. The tutor (s) must present their results clearly, honestly, and without falsification or improper manipulation of the data.
  4. The author or authors must ensure that the data and results presented in the work are original and have not been copied, invented, distorted, or manipulated.
  5. The author (s) must provide appropriate authorship and acknowledgment. Authors should refrain from deliberately misrepresenting a scientist's relationship to published work.
  6. All authors must have contributed significantly to the research.
  7. The author (s) must inform the editor when they have a direct or indirect conflict of interest with the editors or members of the editorial team or the international scientific committee.
  8. 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.
  9. When an author discovers a serious mistake in their work, they have the obligation to report it to the journal as soon as possible, to modify their article, withdraw it, retract it, or publish a correction or erratum.
  10. If the possible mistake is detected by any of the members of the Drafting Committee, the author is obliged to prove that their work is correct.
  11. The author or authors are obliged, for all submitted materials, to participate in a peer-review process.

Editors’ Responsibilities

  1. The Editorial Team will be impartial when managing the papers proposed for publication and must respect the intellectual independence of the author (s), who must be given the right to reply if they have been negatively evaluated.
  2. Those that are part of the Editorial Board are obliged to keep the texts received and their content confidential until they have been accepted for publication. Only then its title and authorship can be promulgated.
  3. Likewise, no member of the Editorial Board may use data, arguments, or interpretations contained in unpublished papers for their own research, except with the express written consent of the person or persons who have done it.
  4. The Editorial Board has the obligation to assign the reviewers considering their area of knowledge and safeguard the identity of the reviewers or the authors to comply with the double-blind principle.

Reviewers’ Responsibilities

  1. Reviewers should be aware of and take into account the editorial policy and the publication's statement of ethics and violation of information.
  2. The journal will require potential reviewers to have significant scientific or work experience in a relevant field. They must have recently conducted research and / or work and have gained experience recognized by their peers. Potential reviewers must provide personal and professional information that is accurate and provides a fair representation of their experience.
  3. The reviewer (s) should only accept those manuscripts that are related to their area of knowledge.
  4. Likewise, all 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 are considered to be in conflict of interest.

Appeals and Complaints:

When appeals are related to the result of a peer review, the well-founded arguments presented by the authors will be evaluated, in case there are still doubts, a new reviewer will be asked to define the result.

When appeals are related to plagiarism, the journal will apply its detection mechanisms to verify the complaint; if necessary, the opinion of an external expert will be considered. All cases will be resolved following the corresponding institutional, national, and international regulations.

Complaints related to the conduct of members of the Journal's editorial or technical team will be dealt with by the remaining members of the editorial board if this is not possible or appropriate.

In all cases, the person reporting the complaint is expected to email Educare: revistaeducareupelipb@gmail.com in which they will concretely present their arguments and attach relevant evidence.

EDUCARE UPEL –IPB on behalf of its editor-in-chief will publish corrections, clarifications, retractions, and apologies if necessary.

Conflicts of Interest Policy:

The UPEL IPB EDUCARE journal encourages authors to declare any conflict of interest as a sign of transparency. The personal relationship, employment relationship, funding or support, etc., must be identified by the authors.

The authors, reviewers, and members of the editorial board and the technical team of the journal must indicate if there is any interest that may affect the effectiveness or objectivity of the tasks they carry out for publication. Authors will do so when they submit their work; the reviewers, upon receiving the request for peer review or when identifying any element that may influence their result, in these cases must notify the Editor so that he/she can be replaced by another reviewer.

If a conflict of interest is detected in an already published document, the authors will be asked to explain the situation and any clarifications deemed necessary will be incorporated into the information in the document.

Declaration of Originality:

The author (s) must fill out and sign the originality declaration form for their intellectual production, in addition to declaring the contribution of each author in case the article was collectively prepared. The Editorial Board of the UPEL IPB EDUCARE Journal undertakes to respect the order in which the authors appear in the manuscript.

Other information:

UPEL IPB EDUCARE Journal assumes that under no circumstances the authorship of any document will be disclosed to any reviewer or vice versa, with it we consider our regulations on double-blind review and the editorial standards in this regard to have been fulfilled.

REFERENCES