Code of Ethics
This code is based on the Principles of Transparency and Best Practices in Scholarly Publishing of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE): http://publicationethics.org/. It is intended for editors, reviewers, and authors.
- Editors
- Publication Decision: The Editorial Team will ensure the selection of the most qualified and scientifically specialized reviewers to provide a critical and expert assessment of the work, minimizing bias as much as possible.
- Honesty: Editors evaluate submitted articles solely based on the scientific merit of their content and in accordance with the journal’s editorial policy.
- Confidentiality: Editors and other members of the various councils and staff commit to not disclosing information regarding submitted articles to anyone other than the authors, reviewers, and editors. Anonymity is used to preserve the intellectual integrity of the entire process.
- Conflict of Interest and Disclosure: Editors commit to not using the contents of submitted articles in their own research without the written consent of the authors.
- Editorial Process Time: The editorial team commits to communicating the receipt, evaluation, decision, and acceptance, correction, or rejection of submitted works within a total period that does not exceed 180 days.
- Reviewers
- Contribution to the Editorial Decision: Reviewers must conduct a critical, constructive, and unbiased review of the received works to ensure scientific and literary quality in their area of expertise.
- Time Management: Reviewers commit to evaluating the works as promptly as possible to meet the deadlines, as REIDICS seeks to optimize editorial management. If a reviewer feels unqualified in the subject matter or cannot complete the review within the allocated time, they should notify the Editorial Team immediately.
- Objectivity: The review should be as objective as possible, avoiding personal judgments about the authors. All assessments must be justified in a report that should be as thorough as possible to help the authors understand the suggested changes or corrections. In case of rejection, the reasons for the decision must be clearly explained. Additionally, if there is any conflict of interest, the reviewer should decline the review.
- Confidentiality: Manuscripts are distributed anonymously. However, each assigned manuscript must be treated as confidential, meaning that they should not be discussed with others without the express consent of the authors or editors.
- References: Reviewers are encouraged to indicate any fundamental bibliographic references that the author may have overlooked. Reviewers should also inform editors of any significant similarity or overlap between the manuscript and other published works.
- Conflict of Interest and Disclosure: Confidential information or data obtained through peer review must be treated as confidential and cannot be used for personal purposes. Reviewers should only review manuscripts if no conflict of interest exists.
- Authors
- Originality and Plagiarism: All works submitted for publication must be original. Authors of submitted manuscripts confirm that the work is original, that it does not contain parts of other authors’ works, or fragments from other works already published by the authors themselves. Furthermore, authors confirm the accuracy of the data and results presented in the work, meaning that they are original and there is no plagiarism, distortion, or manipulation of empirical data or sources used to corroborate the hypotheses or conjectures.
- Commitment to Exclusivity: Works submitted to REIDICS must not have been simultaneously submitted to another journal for selection. They also cannot contain, even partially, results already published in other articles.
- Source Listing: Authors must always provide proper indication of the sources and contributions cited in the article.
- Authorship: For articles with contributions from more than one person, authorship must be assigned in accordance with the level of responsibility and involvement in the development of the work. Additionally, all individuals who have made significant scientific and intellectual contributions to the research and article drafting must be acknowledged.
- Access and Retention: The editorial team may require authors to provide the data or sources on which the research is based, retaining them for a reasonable time after publication and making them accessible to the editor. All data must be thoroughly anonymized for this purpose.
Statement on Misconduct
With regard to best practices for strengthening ethics in scientific publishing, the editorial process, after fulfilling the required formal aspects, ensures that all authors review and explicitly accept responsibility for the content and record each individual’s contribution at the end of the manuscript. Confirmation may be provided via signature or digital verification, including the declaration of any conflicts of interest, which must be explicitly stated in the publication.
In cases where authorship is questioned, the corresponding author will be contacted first, and, if necessary, the other authors as well. In the event of an impasse, the authors’ affiliated institutions or funding bodies involved in the research will be contacted.
Regarding the individuals involved in the research, the editorial process requires authors to submit supporting documents, such as the relevant ethics committee’s approval, participant consent forms, interview transcripts, questionnaires, etc. In case of doubt or questioning, the Editorial Team will contact the corresponding author and, if necessary, all the authors, requesting additional information.
To ensure the originality of the submitted texts, the journal employs plagiarism detection software to compare them with previously published works. The journal informs the authors of the program used during the article submission process.
In cases of doubt or questioning, the Editorial Team will contact the corresponding author and, if necessary, all the authors, and if duplication is confirmed, the authors’ affiliated institutions or the research’s funding bodies will be contacted.
If there are doubts about the inclusion of citations and references, verification will be carried out, or the cited document will be requested. In cases of doubt or questioning, the Editorial Team will contact the corresponding author and, if necessary, all the authors.
When, during the review process, editors or reviewers identify excessive self-citation by authors and/or a journal, the corresponding author and, if necessary, all the authors will be contacted for clarification to support the decision-making process.
Editors and reviewers must prioritize impartiality, integrity, and confidentiality in their evaluations, focusing on constructive criticism and adhering to the deadlines agreed upon with the journal. In cases of doubt or questioning, the Editorial Team must contact the corresponding editor and/or the reviewers.
Fabrication or falsification of data and images are considered serious misconduct. The evaluation process is a key criterion in identifying such practices. If there is any doubt, the authors will be asked to provide supporting data for the methodology and results. In the case of confirmed misconduct, the authors’ affiliated institutions or the research’s funding bodies will be informed.
The journal will inform the authors, via submission instructions, about how to report suspicions of misconduct.
In cases of doubt or questioning as mentioned above, the journal will follow COPE’s flowcharts for identifying and addressing misconduct. In cases where the journal’s decision is contested, a committee consisting of editorial board members and external experts will be formed.
On Retractions and Errata
An article found to involve misconduct will remain indexed in the REIDICS database as retracted. The retraction will document the reason, duly referenced, through communication by the author, editor, or another authorized agent and published in the same journal. Retraction may be partial if the misconduct applies only to a specific part of the article without compromising the overall research. The article cannot be “unpublished”.
Errors or mistakes that do not constitute misconduct will be corrected via errata.
The journal will publish errata, corrections, or retractions as quickly as possible.
For more details, please visit:
