Ethical commitment
Studia Humanitatis Journal (SHJ) establishes a commitment to ethics and good practices to guarantee the integral management of the edition. This commitment is mandatory for editors, authors and evaluators, and is established in accordance with the criteria established by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) in its Core Practices and its Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing, as well as the Code of Ethics of the Universidad Rey Juan Carlos (Madrid, Spain). More specifically, we adopt here, point by point, the Good Practice Code of the Spanish National Research Council (Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científica), (CSIC, Madrid, 2016) 3.0 Version (june), which is the reference in Spain. This commitment to ethics and good practices implies the acceptance and signature, by authors and evaluators, of a declaration of conformity as far as they are concerned.
1. STUDIA HUMANITATIS JOURNAL EDITORIAL TEAM
The Editorial Team of Studia Humanitatis Journal is composed of the Management Team (director/editor in chief, editor, secretary and section editors), the Editorial Team and the Advisory team.
This team is responsible for the published contents, so its members must ensure the scientific quality, avoid bad practices in the publication of research results and manage the edition of the papers received in a reasonable time.
The management of the publication of Studia Humanitatis Journal corresponds directly to the Management Team, which will be assisted by experts in the different areas, as well as by the Editorial Team and the Advisory Team, from whom they may obtain a prior report and, if necessary, designate the evaluators of the proposals in accordance with the procedure established in this Code.
This responsibility implies keeping the following principles in mind:
1.1 Impartiality
The Editorial Team must be impartial when managing the papers proposed for publication and must respect the intellectual independence of the authors, who must be granted the right to reply in the event of a negative evaluation.
Papers presenting negative results of an investigation should not be excluded.
1.2 Confidentiality agreement
The members of the Editorial Team are obliged to keep the texts received and their content confidential until they have been accepted for publication. Only then can their title and authorship be disseminated.
Likewise, no member of the Editorial Team may use data, arguments or interpretations contained in unpublished works for his or her own research, except with the express written consent of the authors.
1.3 Review of the works
The Editorial Team must ensure that the published research works have been evaluated by at least two specialists in the field, and that the review process has been fair and impartial.
The method used in the peer review system is the double-blind procedure (anonymity of those who have performed the work and the evaluation). When one of the two evaluations is negative, the authors may request a third report.
The Editorial Team must ensure the originality and unpublished nature of the works received, and must guarantee that the evaluation process monitors these aspects and detects plagiarism, self-plagiarism and redundant or duplicate publication, understood as the total, partial or altered copy of a work published by the same author to make it appear different, as well as falsified or manipulated data. In addition, the contents that are subject to peer review must be clearly indicated.
The Editorial Team values and appreciates the contribution of those who collaborate in the evaluation of works submitted to the Studia Humanitatis Journal. Likewise, it actively promotes in the forums in which it participates, that the academic authorities recognize peer review activities as part of the scientific process and dispenses with those who make evaluations of low quality, incorrect, disrespectful or delivered outside the established deadlines.
1.4 Acceptance or rejection of manuscripts
The responsibility for accepting or rejecting a work for publication rests with the Editorial Team, which should base its decision on the reports received. These reports should reason their opinion on the quality of the papers in terms of relevance, originality and clarity of exposition.
The Editorial Team may directly reject the papers received without resorting to an external consultation process if it considers them inappropriate for lacking the required level of quality, for not being in line with the scientific objectives of Studia Humanitatis Journal, or for presenting evidence of scientific fraud.
1.5 Disavowal of articles published in Studia Humanitatis Journal and notice of irregularity
The Editorial Team reserves the right to disavow those articles already published whose unreliability is subsequently determined as a result of both unintentional errors and fraud or bad scientific practices: fabrication, manipulation or copying of data, plagiarism and self-plagiarism of texts and redundant or duplicate publication, omission of references to the sources consulted, use of contents without permission or without justification, etc. The objective guiding the deauthorization is to correct the scientific production already published, ensuring its integrity.
The conflict of duplicity, caused by the simultaneous publication of an article in two journals, will be resolved by determining the date of receipt of the work in each of them.
If only part of the article contains an error, it can be rectified later with an editorial note or a corrigendum.
In case of conflict, Studia Humanitatis Journal will ask the author(s) for explanations and evidence to clarify it and will make a final decision based on these.
Studia Humanitatis Journal will obligatorily publish the announcement about the disavowal of a certain text and the reasons for such a measure must be mentioned in it, in order to distinguish malpractice from unintentional error. In addition, Studia Humanitatis Journal will notify this disavowal to the heads of the institution to which the author(s) of the article belong(s). The decision to disavow a text should be taken as soon as possible, so that the erroneous work is not cited in the corresponding field of research.
Disavowed articles will be kept in the files of the Studia Humanitatis Journal website, clearly and unequivocally warning that it is a disavowed article, in order to distinguish it from other corrections or comments.
As a preliminary step to the final disavowal of an article, Studia Humanitatis Journal may issue a notice of irregularity, providing the necessary information in the same terms as in the case of a disavowal. The notice of irregularity will be maintained for the minimum time necessary, and will conclude with its withdrawal or with the formal disavowal of the article.
1.6 Application of the Studia Humanitatis Journal's Regulatory Standard for Publication
The person who is the editor in chief of Studia Humanitatis Journal is responsible for the correct application of the rules that regulate the functioning of the Editorial Team and must ensure that its members are aware of them. These functions are: to promote and represent Studia Humanitatis Journal in the different forums; to suggest and support possible improvements; to seek the collaboration of specialists and referents in the field; to review, in a first evaluation, the works received; to write editorials, reviews, comments, etc.; to attend the meetings of the Editorial Team.
1.7 Author's Guidelines
The Guidelines for submission of manuscripts for Studia Humanitatis Journal (characteristics of the work, format and resolution of images, system for bibliographic references, etc.) are public and are available in electronic format on its website.
1.8 Conflict of interests
A conflict of interests arises when a work received in Studia Humanitatis Journal is signed, among other possible situations, by a person who is part of the Editorial Team, by a person who has a direct personal or professional relationship, or by a person who is closely related to the past or present research of the member of the Editorial Team. Specifically, members of the Editorial Team must refrain from handling an original when they incur in any of these or similar situations:
− be related,
− have manifest friendship or enmity,
− to be part of the same research group,
− participate or have participated in the direction or co-direction of a doctoral thesis within the last 10 years,
− have defended a doctoral thesis under the direction or co-direction of the author(s) in the last 10 years,
− collaborate or have collaborated in publications or patents in the last 5 years,
− collaborating in other economic or scientific-technological activities,
− have a contractual relationship or share national or international research funds or projects, from public or private entities, or of any other nature, in the last 3 years.
The Editorial Board will also refrain from selecting evaluators who are or may be affected by any of these situations.
2. AUTHORSHIP OF STUDIA HUMANITATIS JOURNAL ARTICLES
The authors of the texts submitted for publication in Studia Humanitatis Journal are primarily responsible for their content and are therefore required to apply an ethical standard designed to ensure their originality and due attribution of authorship, among other aspects.
Inappropriate behavior may result in the disallowance of published content, as established in section 1.5 of this Code.
In addition to its ethical assessment, improper conduct may result in the violation of its own rights or those of third parties, for which the editor of Studia Humanitatis Journal reserves the right to take appropriate legal action.
2.1 Publication standards
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 analysis of the results. Sufficient information must be provided so that any specialist can reproduce the research carried out and confirm or refute the interpretations defended in the work.
Authors should adequately mention the origin of ideas or literal phrases taken from other published works as indicated in the Guidelines for Authors of Studia Humanitatis Journal.
When images are included as part of the research, it should be conveniently explained how they were created or obtained, as long as it is necessary for their understanding. In the case of total or partial reproduction of previously published graphic material (figures, photos, maps, etc.), the source must be cited, providing the pertinent reproduction permissions if necessary.
Unnecessary fragmentation of articles should be avoided. If it is a very extensive work, it could be published in several parts if the Editorial Team considers so, so that each one develops a specific aspect of the general study. The different divisions of the work should be published in Studia Humanitatis Journal to facilitate its interpretation by the readers, but in no case will the publication of half a part of a work be accepted if it does not make sense.
2.2 Originality and plagiarism
Authors must ensure that the data and results presented in the paper are original and have not been copied, invented, distorted or manipulated.
Plagiarism in all its forms, self-plagiarism, multiple or redundant publication, as well as the invention or manipulation of data constitute serious ethical misconduct and are considered scientific frauds.
Authors shall not send to Studia Humanitatis Journal originals that have been previously submitted for consideration by another editor, nor shall they send such original to another editor until they receive notification of its rejection or voluntarily withdraw it. However, it is acceptable to publish a paper that expands on another paper that has already appeared as a short note, communication or abstract in the proceedings of a congress, provided that the text on which it is based is properly cited and that the modifications involve a substantial change to what has already been published.
On the other hand, subsidiary publications are also acceptable if they are aimed at totally different readers; for example, if the work is published in different languages or if there is a version for specialists as opposed to one aimed at the general public. These circumstances should be specified, and the original publication should be appropriately cited.
2.3 Authorship of the work
In the case of multiple authorship, whoever appears as the person responsible for the work must guarantee the recognition of those who have contributed significantly to the conception, planning, design, execution, data collection, interpretation and discussion of the results of the work; in any case, all the persons who sign it share the responsibility for the work presented.
Likewise, the person in charge and contact person must ensure that those who sign it have reviewed and approved the final version of the work and give their approval for its possible publication.
The person responsible for the publication must ensure that none of the signatures responsible for the work have been omitted, nor have others been added that are not, thus satisfying the aforementioned criteria of co-authorship, avoiding fictitious or gift authorship, which is a bad scientific practice.
In addition, the contribution of others who are not listed as signatories or responsible for the final version of the paper should be acknowledged in an appropriate manner, by way of thanks.
If the Editorial Team considers it necessary or if the signatories of the work request it, the individual contribution to the work of each member of the signatory group will be briefly described in the published version.
2.4 Sources of information and financing
The text of the work should acknowledge the publications that have influenced the research, so the original sources on which the information contained in the work is based should be identified and cited in the bibliography. Nevertheless, irrelevant quotations or quotations referring to similar examples should not be included, and references to research already established in the corpus of scientific knowledge should not be abused.
Authors should not use information obtained privately through conversations, correspondence or discussions with professional colleagues unless they have the explicit written permission of the source of the information and the information was received in the context of scientific advice.
The publication must indicate in a clear and concise manner, all the sources of financing granted for the study, mentioning the private or public entity responsible for such financing, and the identification code of such financing, when it exists. This information will appear at the end of the published text.
2.5 Significant errors in published works
When an author discovers a serious error in his or her work, he or she is under the obligation to communicate it to the Studia Humanitatis Journal editors as soon as possible, in order to modify his or her work, withdraw it, retract it or publish a correction or corrigendum.
If the possible error is detected by any of the members of the Editorial Team, the authors are obligated to prove that their work is correct or modify it.
The process for resolving these conflicts is described in section 1.5 of this Code.
2.6 Conflict of interest
When there are any commercial, financial or personal bonds that may affect the results and conclusions of the work, the text must be accompanied by a declaration stating these circumstances, which will appear in the published version.
3. EVALUATION OF ARTICLES AND REVIEWS SUBMITTED TO STUDIA HUMANITATIS JOURNAL
The people who participate in the evaluation have an essential role in the process that guarantees the quality of the publication. They assist the Studia Humanitatis Journal Editorial Team in making editorial decisions, help to improve the published work, and provide a guarantee of scientific accreditation.
3.1 Confidentiality
The person who conducts an evaluation must consider it as a confidential document until it is published, both during and after the review process. Under no circumstances may this person disseminate or use the information, details, arguments or interpretations contained in the text under review for his or her own benefit or that of others, or to the detriment of third parties. Only in special cases may the advice of other specialists in the field be sought, a circumstance that should be reported to the Studia Humanitatis Journal's Management.
3.2 Objectivity
Whoever perfom an evaluation must objectively judge the quality of the complete work, i.e., including the information on which the working hypothesis is based, the theoretical and experimental data and their interpretation, without neglecting the presentation and writing of the text.
Additionally, he/she must specify his/her criticisms, and be objective and constructive in his/her comments. They must adequately argue their judgments, without adopting hostile positions and respecting the intellectual independence of the person who has prepared the work.
The person conducting an evaluation must advise the person who commissioned the evaluation of any relevant similarities between the work submitted for evaluation and any other work published or under evaluation in another publication of which he/she is aware. Likewise, it should draw attention to texts or data plagiarized from others or from the same author(s) of the evaluated work, or to the suspicion or well-founded certainty that they are falsified, invented or manipulated.
3.3 Promptness of response
Whoever perfom an evaluation must act promptly and must deliver the report within the agreed time, notifying the Studia Humanitatis Journal Management of any possible delays.
If the person conducting an evaluation does not consider him/herself capable of judging the work commissioned or considers that he/she is unable to complete the task within the agreed deadline, he/she should inform the Studia Humanitatis Journal Management as soon as possible.
3.4 Recognition of information sources
Anyone conducting an assessment should ensure that relevant published works on the subject are cited. To this end, he/she will review the bibliography included in the text, suggesting the elimination of superfluous or redundant references, or the incorporation of others that have not been cited.
3.5 Conflict of interests
The person conducting an evaluation must refuse to review a work when it is suspected or known that it is included in any of the situations that may affect his or her judgment of that work, as described in section 1.8 of this Code.
Conflicts of interest may also arise when the work to be evaluated is closely related to the work the evaluator is currently developing or has already published. In these cases, when in doubt, the assignment should be abandoned, and the work returned to the Editorial Team, stating the reasons for such a decision.