Ethical Rules

General duties 

Individuals associated with the journal —particularly authors, reviewers, and journal members— ought to fulfil the following general duties: 

Responsibility

All individuals associated with the Journal should behave according to the ethical rules included in the Journal’s website and to other required professional standards. They are responsible for the consequences of the failure to fulfil them. 

Honesty

All individuals associated with the Journal should act in good faith, that is, trustworthily motivated by the development of knowledge. 

Accuracy

All individuals associated with the Journal should carry out their tasks with professionality, diligence, and precision. 

Impartiality

Individuals associated with the Journal should assure that their actions are grounded on strictly scholarly and objective criteria. 

Transparency

Individuals associated with the Journal should communicate any information relevant to the protection of confidence. Any sort of existing or potential conflict of interest should be adequately reported. 

Respect

Individuals associated with the Journal should promote an environment of mutual respect during the whole editorial process. 

Confidentiality

Data, documents, and, in general, all sort of information received by an individual associated with the Journal should be used only for the foreseen editorial purposes, with the explicit consent of the sender. Additionally, all information will be of confidential character, and should thus be protected from further distribution.

 Journal members 

Journal members may incur in the following infractions. Infractions not directly included here may be established as a consequence of the nonfulfillment of the general duties. 

  1. Improper request for citations

If a journal member requests from possible authors directly or indirectly the citation of specific works due to non-academical reasons (such as obtaining an improper advantage), they incur in an ethical infraction. 

  1. Disregard of a conflict of interest

Journal members should declare, in a timely, honest and clear way, the real or potential conflicts of interest that may affect their actions or decisions. 

  1. Manipulation of documents and information

Journal members should not manipulate, hide, or eliminate submitted articles; reports with preliminary observations or decisions of reviewers; publishing decisions or exchanges; whether to benefit or harm someone, to affect the publishing rights or due to any other morally reprehensible motive. The preparation of the peer review report based on the decisions of reviewers will not be considered a form of document manipulation. Likewise, the elimination of an author’s traces to safeguard the peer-reviewing under the double-blind system will not be considered an infraction. 

  1. Violation of the confidentiality duty 

This ethical infraction occurs when any journal member violates their confidentiality duty by disseminating personal information or the content of an article, peer-review report, decision, communication, or any other confidential information amongst individuals, institutions not associated with the journal, or the general public, without the previous, voluntary, informed and written consent of those who could be affected. The submission of the title and summary of the proposed article to possible reviewers, the submission of the anonymised article to the reviewers, and communications aimed at confirming an ethics violation are exempted from this rule. 

  1. Obstruction of cooperation

Journal members pledge to offer all necessary information to determine if an ethical infraction was committed. Accordingly, the obstruction of the corresponding inquiry or any form of retaliation against the accuser constitute an infraction of the present rules. Additionally, any form of evading or eluding responsibilities, such as hiding or erasing information of the journal, is also considered a form of obstruction.  

Reviewers 

Reviewers who accept to review a journal article should not incur in the following infractions. Infractions not directly included here may be established as a consequence of the nonfulfillment of the general duties. 

  1. Improper review

An ethical infraction is committed when a dishonest, imprecise, arbitrary, discriminatory, or contradictory decision is issued, suggesting a lack of care during its elaboration. Likewise, the reviewer should not propose changes in an article or reject an article with the aim of benefiting a personal stance or an individual related to them. 

The peer-review form should be filled by reviewers in a comprehensive, rigorous, impartial, and honest way. Additionally, observations to the article should be presented based on clear, reasoned, constructive and strictly scholarly arguments, preserving the respect proper to a scholarly environment. 

To determine if an ethical infraction has occurred, it is necessary to contrast the evaluation at hand with the assessment of the other reviewer, and to consider the article under review. 

  1. Function delegation

An ethical infraction is committed if a reviewer delegates their function to another person, even if the reviewer participates in some way in the process. This is because the task of the reviewer is strictly personal. 

  1. Disregard of a conflict of interest

Reviewers should declare, in a timely, honest, and clear way, the real or potential conflicts of interest that may affect their actions or decisions. If the reviewers realise that there is a conflict of interest with respect to the article submitted for their assessment, they should inform the Journal and abstain from reviewing it. 

  1. Improper request for citations

If a reviewer indicates in their decision that the author should cite specific works due to non-academical reasons (such as obtaining an improper advantage, amongst others), they incur in an ethical infraction. 

  1. Disregard of the lack of thematic competence

This ethical infraction takes place when reviewers do not inform that they are not suitable for carrying out the assessment, whether at the moment of the invitation or during the evaluation of the article. Reviewers have the duty of informing the Journal of their lack of thematic competence. 

  1. Violation of the confidentiality duty

This ethical infraction occurs when a reviewer shares the article under their assessment with individuals, institutions not associated with their task, or any other third party, since the article is of confidential character. If the article is not shared, the reviewer is allowed to consult other individuals about a certain theme under evaluation. This confidentiality duty also applies to individuals who decline being reviewers after beginning this task. Additionally, the content of the article and the ideas that follow from it should not be used in the reviewer’s personal research under any circumstance, except when the article has already been published and is cited in an adequate form. 

  1. Obstruction of cooperation

Reviewers pledge to offer all necessary information to determine if an ethical infraction was committed. Accordingly, the obstruction of the corresponding inquiry or any form of retaliation against the accuser constitute an infraction of the present rules.  

Authors 

Everyone who submits an article of their authorship should avoid incurring in one of the following infractions. Infractions not directly included here may be established as a consequence of the nonfulfillment of the general duties. 

  1. Multiple submission

Individuals who submit an article to Areté should not have committed to publish a version of this same article in another media, and/or should not commit to publishing it before the article has been actually published or before they have received the publishing notification indicating that the article will not be published. This infraction not only takes place concerning identical versions, but also concerning extended or partial versions of the article, whether using exact or paraphrased parts of the article or regarding translations that are presented as original articles. 

  1. Arbitrary withdrawal of the article

This infraction is committed when an author withdraws an article from the Journal arbitrarily, once the publishing process has already started. 

  1. Disregard of first publication rights

This infraction is committed when the author of an article published for the first time in the journal Areté does not acknowledge the first publication rights in posterior reprints. This acknowledgment should be clear and complete. This rule applies also to parts of an article published previously in Areté. 

  1. Improper use of the journal name

This infraction is committed when an article submitted to the Journal is presented as effectively published, “in preparation”, or, in general, if it is stated that the article will be necessarily published in the Journal before receiving a confirmation of approval. The public use of the name of the Journal is only allowed for those articles that have been explicitly approved for publication. 

  1. Fabrication of information on the author or the article

This infraction is committed by an author who includes in a submitted article false information regarding funding, institutional memberships, academic degrees, and others. 

  1. Use of affronts

Affronts are incompatible with the impartial and respectful treatment expected from the authors. This observation applies also to the communications between the authors and other individuals associated with the Journal. 

  1. Infringement of the rights of a third party

This ethical infraction takes place when an article —or parts of it— has been elaborated on the basis of an infraction of the publishing rights or when it infringes, in general, the rights of third parties. 

  1. Infractions concerning the authorship of the article

The Journal acknowledges as authors those individuals who have substantially contributed to the creation of the article, either in its conception, research or writing. Thus, the following cases are considered infractions: 

8.1. Omission of the consent of coauthors

This ethical infraction takes place when a submitted article does not have the consent of one of its coauthors. This consent should be given not only regarding the first version submitted to the Journal, but also concerning the successive modifications that the article may experience during the editorial process. 

8.1.1. Authorship dispute

Individuals who believe that they should be included as authors in an article submitted to the Journal or published in it have the duty of demanding such recognition to the persons that figure as authors. If they do not receive an answer or a reasonable justification from them, they should inform the Journal members, so that the conflict may be solved. Additionally, if an author must be replaced or changed to solve the dispute —whether the article has been published or not—, this will be done according to the flow charts of the Publications Ethical Committee (Comité de Ética de las Publicaciones (COPE)). 

On the other hand, if the dispute is decided by public authorities, Areté will accept the decision taken by the competent institution for publishing rights, without disregarding any previous decision taken by the Journal on this matter. These decisions will be harmonised with any decision made by public authorities, when issued. 

8.1.2. Authorship dispute concerning the order of appearance of the authors

Disputes concerning the order of appearance of the authors should be solved by the individuals who appear as authors, considering the degree of contribution of each author in the preparation of the article. Therefore, the placement in preeminent positions of authors who have contributed to a lesser degree in the preparation of the article will be considered an ethical infraction. 

8.1.3. Change of authorship

If the individuals responsible for a submitted article require a change in its authorship, this should be rigorously justified following the definition of authorship used by the Journal. This is so because the requirement of an authorship change of a submitted article implies sufficient evidence for inquiring if an infraction concerning the authorship has taken place. In such cases, the editorial team will act according to the pertinent COPE flowcharts. 

  1. Duplicate publication

When an author reuses the content of their previous works —already published or in preparation for publication in any media whatsoever— in an article submitted to Areté without adequately including the citation, they incur in the infraction of duplicate publication. This ethical infraction can present itself under the following modalities: 

9.1. Exact duplicate publication

It takes place when exact parts of previous works of the author are used in a new article, but without the corresponding citation. 

9.2. Duplicate publication through paraphrase

It takes place when parts of previous works of the author are used in a new article through the use of paraphrase, but without the adequate citation. 

9.3. Duplicate publication through translation

The infraction of duplicate publication in both of the abovementioned modalities also takes place when translated parts of previous works are used without adequate citation. 

9.4. Duplicate publication concerning coauthors

In articles with various authors, duplicate publication can take place in works that have as authors all the individuals responsible for the authorship or only some of them. This infraction can take place in the different modalities described in the previous sections. 

  1. Plagiarism

An author commits plagiarism when they present as their own ideas contained in any intellectual product produced by another person, group of persons or institution, identified or not, contained in any medium or format. It is strictly necessary that the authors cite adequately all sorts of works in the body text, and include them in the bibliography. Plagiarism could take place in the following modalities: 

10.1. Exact plagiarism

This takes place when the plagiarism implies the total or partial copy of a work not ascribable to the author, without citing it properly in the submitted article —that is, with quotation marks or indentation, depending on what is required—. 

10.2. Plagiarism by paraphrase

This takes place when a work not ascribable to the author is paraphrased without properly citing it in the submitted article. 

10.3. Plagiarism by improper paraphrase

This takes place if, when paraphrasing the content of someone else’s work, only some words are altered, the order of the ideas is changed, or the structure of the argumentation is followed, amongst other forms of elusion, even if the author of the original source is cited. These actions constitute an ethical infraction since the paraphrase is presented as a creation of the article’s author, although materially it corresponds to an exact quote that should have been cited with quotation marks or indentation, depending on what is required. 

10.4. Citation plagiarism

It takes place when the author copies the textual citations or the paraphrases found in other works. 

10.5. Plagiarism of structure

This takes place when an article is extremely similar in its outline and composition to the work of a third party. 

10.6. Plagiarism of illustrations, charts, or graphs

Every illustration, chart or graph should include the source in an adequate way. If this is not the case, it will be considered plagiarism. 

10.7. Plagiarism of non-published (and similar) works

The duty of proper citation applies also to works that have not been published, as well as to communications through emails and other media. If these sources are not indicated, it is considered plagiarism. The use of these works also requires the consent of their authors. 

10.8. Plagiarism through translation

The above mentioned modalities of plagiarism can also take place if works from someone else are translated to use them in the article without citing them properly. 

  1. Fabrication of information or sources

It is also an ethical infraction to fabricate works, information or similar elements with the aim of using this in an article. It is also an infraction to present information that does not appear in an existing work. 

  1. Obstruction of cooperation

Authors pledge to offer all necessary information to determine if an ethical infraction was committed. Accordingly, the obstruction of the corresponding inquiry or any form of retaliation against the accuser constitute an infraction of the present rules. Additionally, any form of evading or eluding responsibilities, such as withdrawing an article in the midst of a plausible suspicion of an ethical infraction, is also considered a form of obstruction.  

Sources

(*) The ethical rules published here are a version, partially modified, of the ethical rules of the journal Derecho PUCP. Areté is responsible for all the content. 

Sources used 

Academic good practice – a practical guide. Oxford: University of Oxford. Retrieved from https://www.ox.ac.uk/sites/files/oxford/ field/field_document/Academic%20good%20practice%20a%20 practical%20guide_0.pdf 

All European Academies. (2018). Código Europeo de Conducta para la Integridad en la Investigación. Berlín: ALLEA. 

Baiget, T. (2010). Ética en revistas científicas. Ibersid, 4, 59-65. 

Bebeau, M. J., & E. L. Davis. (1996). Survey of ethical issues in dental research. Journal of Dental Research, 75(2), 845-855. https://doi.org/10.1177/00220345960750021901 

Código Voluntario de Buenas Prácticas del Abogado de la Red Peruana de Universidades. Retrieved from http://facultad.pucp.edu.pe/ derecho/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/2.-Codigo-Voluntario-de- Buenas-Practicas-a-Feb-2012.pdf 

Committee on Publications Ethics. (s.f.). Flowcharts. Retrieved from: https://publicationethics.org/guidance/Flowcharts 

Declaración de Helsinki de la Asociación Médica Mundial – Principios éticos para las investigaciones médicas en seres humanos. Retrieved from: https://www.wma.net/es/policies-post/declaracion-de-helsinki- de-la-amm-principios-eticos-para-las-investigaciones-medicas-en- seres-humanos/ 

Declaración de Singapur sobre la Integridad en la Investigación. Retrieved from: https://www.conicyt.cl/fondap/files/2014/12/ DECLARACI%C3%93N-SINGAPUR.pdf 

Editorial Policy Committee, Council of Science Editors. (2018). 

CSE’s White Paper on Promoting Integrity in Scientific Journal Publications. Wheat Ridge, Colorado: Council of Scientific Editors. 

Elsevier. (2017). Ethical Guidelines for Journal Publication. Retrieved from: https://www.elsevier.com/__data/assets/pdf_ file/0009/300888/Ethical-guidelines-for-journal-publication- V2.0-May-2017-Elsevier.pdf 

Elsevier. (s.f.). Publishing Ethics Resource Kit for editors. Retrieved from: https://www.elsevier.com/editors/perk 

Fishman, T. (ed.). The fundamental values of academic integrity. Second edition. Illinois: International Center for Academic Integrity. 

International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. (2018). Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing, and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals. Retrieved from: http://www. icmje.org/icmje-recommendations.pdf 

Marcovitch, H., Barbour, V., Borrell, C., Bosch, F., Fernández, E., Macdonald, H., Marušić, A., & M. Nylenna. (2010). Conflict of Interest in Science Communication: More than a Financial Issue. Report from Esteve Foundation Discussion Group, April 2009. Croatian Medical Journal, 51(1), 7-15. https://doi.org/10.3325/ cmj.2010.51.7 

National Institute of Medicine. (2002). Integrity in scientific research. Creating an environment that promotes responsible conduct. Washington, D. C.: National Research Council. https://doi. org/10.17226/10430 

Revista Chilena de Derecho. (s.f.). Manual de normas éticas y buenas prácticas. Retrieved from: http://revistachilenadederecho. uc.cl/images/Documentos/MANUALDENORMASETICAS.pdf 

Riis, P. (2009). Misconduct in Clinical Research: The Scandinavian Experience and Actions for Prevention. Acta Oncologica, 38(1), 89-92. https://doi.org/10.1080/028418699431852 

Steneck, N. (2006). Fostering integrity in research: Definitions, current knowledge, and future directions. Science and Engineering Ethics, 12(1), 53-74. https://doi.org/10.1007/pl00022268 

Tauginienė, L., Gaižauskaitė, I., Glendinning, I., Kravjar, J., Ojsteršek,M.,Ribeiro,L.,Odiņeca,T.,Marino,F.,Cosentino,M., & S. Sivasubramaniam. (2018). Glossary for Academic Integrity. European Network for Academic Integrity. Retrieved from: http://www.academicintegrity.eu/wp/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/ Glossary_revised_final.pdf 

Tauginienė, L., Ojsteršek, M., Foltýnek, T., Marino, F., Cosentino, M., Gaižauskaitė, I., Glendinning, I., Sivasubramaniam, S., Razi, S., Ribeiro, L., Odineca, T., & O. Trevisiol. (2018). General Guidelines for Academic Integrity. European Network for Academic Integrity. Retrieved from: http://www.academicintegrity.eu/wp/ wp-content/uploads/2018/11/Guidelines_final.pdf 

Turnitin. (2017). White paper: The plagiarism spectrum. Retrieved from: https://www.turnitin.com/infographics/the-plagiarism-spectrum 

Wager, E., & S. Kleinert. (2011). Responsible research publication: International standards for authors. A position statement at the 2nd World Conference on Research Integrity, Singapore, July 22- 24, 2010. In T. Mayer y N. Steneck (eds.), Promoting Research Integrity in a Global Environment (pp. 309-316). Singapur: Imperial College Press, World Scientific Publishing. Retrieved from: https://publicationethics.org/files/International%20standard_ editors_for%20website_11_Nov_2011.pdf 

World Association of Model Editors (WAME) policy statements. Retrieved from: http://www.wame.org/policies 

Zhang, Y. (2016). Against Plagiarism. A Guide for Editors and Authors. New York: Springer International Publishing. https:// doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-24160-9  

Procedures

Use of document comparison software and complementary inquiries

The Journal uses a document comparison software called Turnitin. Likewise, it can undertake complementary inquiries to obtain the highest possible level of certainty concerning the trustworthiness of the submitted articles.

Complaints

Every individual who becomes aware of the commission of some ethical infraction or is affected by it can present a complaint (in good faith and submitting some piece of evidence) to the person in charge of the Journal. Once the complaint is received, the person in charge of the Journal should carry out the corresponding inquiries and apply some of the measures mentioned in the next paragraphs.

Measures to be taken

When a journal member becomes aware of an ethical infraction or receives a complaint concerning one, they will undertake the corresponding inquiries in order to dismiss the possibility of such an infraction or, if they find enough evidence for it, to issue a report with preliminary observations in which the possible infractions are detailed in a clear and precise manner. Depending on the nature of the infraction, the necessary inquiries will be carried out according to the relevant COPE flowcharts.

Individuals under suspicion of committing an infraction will have a minimal deadline of 20 days to clarify, in a responsible and honest manner, the observations. These explanations should be sent to the Journal’s direction, who has the task of evaluating the clarifications of the individuals under suspicion with the aim of determining, finally, if such infractions really took place.

If it is determined that an ethics infraction took place, one of the following measures will be applied:

1.   Measures against authors

The commission of an ethical violation implies the rejection of the submitted article and the communication of the facts to the institution of which the author is a member. Additionally, some of the following measures could be taken, depending on the seriousness of the facts around the infraction:

  1. Temporary prohibition of submission of new articles, for a maximal period of one to three years.
  2. Publication of a note concerning the incident in the Journal’s website and social media.  

2.    Measures against journal members

In the case of infractions by a journal member, the individual must publicly apologise or step down from their position, depending on the seriousness of their infraction. Additionally, the institution sponsoring the Journal and/or the institution of which this individual is a member will be informed of the facts. 

3.     Measures against reviewers

 In the case of infractions committed by reviewers, the facts will be communicated to the institution of which they are members. Additionally, depending on the seriousness of the facts concerning the infraction, one of the following measures shall be taken: 

  1. Exclusion from the reviewers list
  2. Publication of a note about the case

 Research with human beings or animals

If a submitted article is the result of research involving human beings or animals, a favourable decision of an ethics committee will be required. If such a decision is not included when submitting the article, the article will be rejected in the first instance.

 Interpretation of the ethical rules

The meaning and reach of the present rules will be determined, in case of doubt, by the Journal’s direction, in coordination with the editorial board, according to the international standards for publication ethics and to the sources used to produce the present rules.