Ethical Guidelines

General Duties

Individuals related with the Boletín de Arqueología PUCP, and authors, reviewers and members of the journal, in particular, must fulfil the following general duties.

Responsibility

All individuals related with the journal must act in accordance with the ethical regulations published in the journal’s webpage, as well as other requirable professional standards, and must be held responsible for the consequences due to their breach.

Honesty

Individuals connected with the journal must act in good faith, i.e., they must do so honestly for the development of knowledge.

Rigour

All individuals connected with the journal must carry out their duties with professionalism, assiduousness, and accuracy.

Fairness

All individuals connected with the journal must ensure that they act based on strictly academic and objective criteria.

Transparency

People connected with the journal must disclose all information that can safeguard trust. All types of conflicts of interest, be they actual or potential, must be duly reported.

Respect

Individuals connected with the journal must ensure that an environment of mutual respect prevails throughout all of the editorial process.

Confidentiality

The data, documents, and in general all of the information received by any individual connected with the journal, must be strictly used for the planned editorial goals, and with the express consent of the sender. All of the information will likewise be of a confidential nature and its non-dissemination will be ensured.

Authors

All individuals who submit an article they have authored must avoid omitting the following offenses. All offenses not directly listed here are understood to be a result of non-compliance with their general duties. 

  1. Multiple submissions

Authors who submit an article to Boletín de Arqueología PUCP must not have submitted a draft of this same article to any other media, nor should they do so before it has been actually published, or until they are notified by the editors that it has been rejected. This offense stands not just for identical drafts, but also for expanded or partial drafts of the paper, either through the use of literally identical or paraphrased sections, as well as translations that pretend to be original articles. 

  1. Arbitrary withdrawal of an article

This offense is committed by authors who arbitrarily withdraw an article from the journal once the editorial process has begun. 

  1. Disavowal of the right of first publication

This offense is committed by authors of articles previously published by the Boletín de Arqueología PUCP who disavow the right of first publication in subsequent re-publications. This acknowledgement must be clear and in full, and likewise concerns the sections of an article published by the Boletín de Arqueología PUCP. 

  1. Undue use of the journal’s name

This offense is committed if an article submitted to the Boletín de Arqueología PUCP is presented as having been actually published, being “in press”, or if it is stated in general that it will necessarily be published by the journal before being notified of its acceptance. Public use of the name of the Boletín de Arqueología PUCP can only be made in those articles whose publication has been previously approved. 

  1. Fabricating data regarding the author or the article

This offense is committed by whoever includes fake data in a submitted article, such as financing, institutional affiliation, academic degrees and other items. 

  1. Insults

Insults are not compatible with the impartial and respectful treatment expected of authors. This likewise holds for other forms of communications between authors and other individuals connected with the journal. 

  1. Affecting the rights of others

This ethical offense takes place whenever an article or some section(s) in it was developed based on a violation of copyright, or whenever it affects in general the rights of a third party. 

  1. Offenses regarding the authorship of an article

The journal acknowledges as authors those individuals who have made a substantial contribution to the development of an article, be it at its inception, its research or writing. The following cases are therefore considered violations:

8.1. Omitting the consent of co-authors

This ethical violation takes place whenever a submitted article does not have the consent of any of its co-authors. Said consent must be given not just in regard to the first draft sent to the Boletín de Arqueología PUCP, but also in regard to the subsequent modifications the article may undergo throughout the editorial process.

8.1.1. Disputed authorship

Individuals who consider they should be included as authors in an article submitted to, or published by, the journal have the right to demand said acknowledgement from whoever holds the authorship. Should they receive no reasonable solution from the authors, the purportedly aggrieved should report this to the members of the journal in order that the conflict may be solved. If the solution to this dispute likewise requires changing or withdrawing an author regardless of whether the article has been published or not, the journal will proceed in accordance with the relevant flow diagrams issued by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

On the other, should the dispute enter a governmental channel, the Boletín de Arqueología PUCP will obey the ruling made by the competent copyright authority, without prejudice to the previous decisions made by the journal in regard to this dispute, and which will be reconciled with the government’s decision once it has been given.

8.1.2. Authorship disputes in regard to the order in which the authors appear

Disputes regarding the order in which the authors appear will be settled by the individuals who appear as such, in regard to the contribution each author made when preparing the article. In this regard, listing authors who made lesser contributions in preeminent position will be construed as an ethical offense.

8.1.3. Changing authorship

Should the individuals responsible for a submitted article request a change be made in its authorship, this must be rigorously justified in accordance with the definition of authorship used by the journal. The request for a change in the authorship of a submitted article is evidence enough for an enquiry regarding potential offenses in authorship. In these cases, the editorial team will proceed in accordance with the relevant COPE flow diagrams. 

  1. Duplicate publication

A duplicate publication is construed whenever an author reuses the content of some of his/her previous studies—be they already published or in press, in any media—in an article submitted to the Boletín de Arqueología PUCP without properly recording the citations. This ethical offense may take the following forms:

9.1. Literal duplication in publications

This takes place whenever identical parts of the text from previous works by the author are reused without the corresponding citation.

9.2. Duplication by paraphrasing a publication

This takes place whenever parts of previous works by the author are reused in a new article using paraphrases without their being properly cited.

9.3. Duplication by translating a publication

The duplicate publication offense, in both of its previous modes, likewise takes place whenever translated sections of previous works are reused without proper acknowledgement.

9.4. Duplication of a publication by its co-authors

In the case of co-authored articles, the duplication of the publication may take place through studies signed by all individuals responsible for its authorship, or just by some of them. This violation may take place in the various modes described in the previous sections. 

  1. Plagiarism

Plagiarism takes place whenever an author presents as his/her own, ideas or statements from any work produced by other individuals, groups of individuals or institutions, be they identified or not, and be they stored in any media whatsoever. It is essential that authors properly cite all types of studies within the body of the text, as well as include them in the references. Plagiarism can take place in any of the following modes:

10.1. Textual plagiarism

This happens when plagiarism entails a complete or partial copy in the submitted article, of a work not attributed to the author and without properly citing it with quotation marks or indentation, as needed.

10.2. Plagiarism by paraphrasing

This happens when a work not attributed to the author is paraphrased without properly citing it in the submitted article.

10.3. Plagiarism by improper paraphrasing

This happens, amongst other evasive forms, whenever statements made in someone else’s work are paraphrased, with just some words and the order the ideas are presented in being altered, or even when the author of the original source is cited if the structure of the arguments is followed. These assumptions involve an ethical violation because the pretence is made that the author of the article created the paraphrase, whereas it actually is a literal citation that requires quotation marks or indentation, as proves appropriate.

10.4. Plagiarism of citations

This happens whenever an author copies the literal citations or the paraphrases made in another work.

10.5. Plagiarism of structure

This takes place whenever the submitted article is quite similar in its outline and wording to a work done by a third party.

10.6. Plagiarism of illustrations, tables or graphs

All illustrations, tables or graphs must adequately cite its source; this will otherwise be considered plagiarism.

10.7. Plagiarism of unpublished works and such

The obligation to properly cite sources includes non-published works, as well as communications via email or other media. Not including said sources is plagiarism. Besides, their use requires the consent of their authors.

10.8. Plagiarism by translation

The modes of plagiarism described above can likewise take place whenever other people’s works are translated in order to use them in the article without properly citing them.

  1. Forgery of data or sources

An ethical offense is committed whenever studies, data or other such sources are invented in order to use them in an article. This offense is also committed when data are presented that do not appear in any study. 

  1. Obstruction of collaboration

Authors are duty-bound to provide all the information required in order to establish whether an ethical violation has indeed taken place. Obstructing enquiries or taking reprisals against whistle-blowers will therefore be construed as a violation of these regulations. The evasion and elusion of responsibility, for instance by unduly withdrawing a paper in the midst of an enquiry over a plausible ethical, will likewise be construed as an ethical offense.

Reviewers

Reviewers who accept assessing an article for the journal must nor commit the following offenses. All offenses not directly listed here are understood to be a result of non-compliance with their general duties.

  1. Undue assessment

An ethical offense is committed whenever a dishonest, ambiguous, arbitrary, discriminatory or contradictory judgement is passed, which shows a lack of exhaustiveness in its preparation. Reviewers likewise cannot propose changes or reject an article in order to further a position, be it personal or that of a related person.

Reviewers must complete the peer assessment template sent by the Boletín de Arqueología PUCP in full, and in meticulous, impartial and honest fashion. Any observations made to the article must likewise be stated based on clear, reasoned, constructive and strictly academic arguments, and show the respect due in an academic milieu.

In order to check whether this ethical offense has been committed, a comparison must be made with the other reviewer’s report bearing in mind the whole article under assessment. 

  1. Delegation of function

This ethical offense takes place whenever a reviewer delegates his/her role on someone else despite already having already been a participant in some fashion.  This is because a reviewer’s role is strictly personal.  

  1. Omission of conflicts of interest

Reviewers must clearly, timely and honestly declare any real or potential conflicts of interest that might influence their deeds or decisions. Should reviewers become aware of a conflict of interest with an article under revision, they must notify the journal and abstain from reviewing it.  

  1. Undue request of quotations

An ethical offense takes place whenever a reviewer states in his/her assessment that the authors must cite specific studies for non-academic reasons, such as—amongst others—being unduly favoured. 

  1. Omission of lack of thematic competence

The present ethical offense takes place whenever reviewers fail to point out they are unsuited for this role, either on receiving the invitation or when they assess the article. Reviewers must report their lack of thematic competence.

  1. Failure to preserve confidentiality

An ethical offense is committed whenever a reviewer shares the article under review to individuals, institutions or third parties who bear no relation to his/her task because this is confidential information. A reviewer can indeed seek the advice of third parties on a given point under assessment, so long as he/she does not share the text. The duty of confidentiality holds even for people who decline being reviewers and who have already begun work. The article’s content and the ideas derived from it must in no way be used by the reviewer in specific studies, except when the article finally appears and if it is properly cited. 

  1. Obstruction of collaboration

Reviewers are honour-bound to provide all required information in order to ascertain whether an ethical offense has been committed or not. Obstructing enquiries or taking reprisals against whistle-blowers will therefore be construed as a violation of these regulations.

Members of the Journal

Members of the journal may commit the following offenses. All offenses not directly listed here are understood to be a result of non-compliance with their general duties.

  1. Undue request of citations.

Any member of the journal will commit an ethical offense should they directly or indirectly request of potential authors, that given works be cited for non-academic reasons, such as obtaining undue advantages. 

  1. Omission of conflicts of interests

Members of the journal must opportunely state, honestly and clearly, any real or potential conflict of interest that may influence their deeds or decisions. 

  1. Tampering of documents and information

No member of the journal can tamper, hide or eliminate the articles submitted, the preliminary observation reports or the judgements passed by reviewers, editorial decisions or communications, be it either to affect an author’s rights or any other reproachable ethical motive. The preparation of the peer assessment report drawing on the referees’ rulings will not be considered file tampering. Redacting the authors’ names in the articles in order to safeguard peer assessment in the double-bind system also does not constitute an offense. 

  1. Violation of the duty of confidentiality

The present ethical offense will be constituted should any member of the journal violate their duty of confidentiality by divulging personal information or the content of an article, peer-assessment report, communication or any other confidential information to individuals and institutions not connected with the journal or to the public at large without the previous, free, written and informed consent of those who might so be affected. Communicating the title and abstract of an article submitted to potential reviewers, sending the anonymised article to reviewers and the communications pertaining to the confirmation of an ethical offense are not here included. 

  1. Obstructing collaborations

Members of the journal pledge to provide all necessary information in order to elucidate whether an ethical offense has or has not been committed. The obstruction of said enquiries or taking reprisals against whistle-blowers will therefore be considered a violation of these regulations. Any form of evasion or elusion of responsibilities, such as hiding or eliminating information from the journal will likewise be considered an act of obstruction. 

Procedures

Use of text comparison software and supplementary enquiries

The journal uses Turnitin, a text-comparing software. The journal likewise can carry out supplementary enquiries in order to most clearly establish the integrity of submitted articles.

Complaints

Any individual who is aware of an ethical violation or is so affected can denounce it in good faith, and present some means of conviction to whoever is in charge of the journal. Once the denunciation has been received, the individual in charge of the journal must carry out the required enquiries and take some of the measures included in section 5

Measures that can be taken

Whenever a member of the journal takes cognisance of a charge of ethical violation, he/she will carry out the required inquiries in order to dismiss it or, should there be elements of conviction, present a preliminary report listing clearly and specifically the possible violations committed. Depending on the nature of the violation committed, the required inquiries will be made in accordance with the relevant COPE flow diagrams.

Potential offenders will have a minimum of twenty days to responsibly and sincerely explain these observations. This explanation should be submitted to the journal’s director, who will then assess the explanations given by the potential offenders in order to finally establish whether these violations were actually committed or not.

One of the following measures will be taken, should an ethical violation be established.

  1. Measures regarding authors

The commission of an ethical offense entails the rejection of the article submitted, and a letter being sent to the institution to which the author is affiliated. Any of the following measures may likewise be taken, depending on the gravity of the facts related to the offense committed:

  1. A temporary ban on publishing a new article for up to one to three years.
  2. Publishing a note regarding this case on the journal’s webpage and social media. 
  1. Measures in regard to members of the journal

In the case of violations committed by any member of the journal, the individual responsible will have to apologise publicly or submit his/her resignation, depending on the gravity of the offense, without prejudice to communicating the offense to the institution promoting the journal or the institution to which he/she is affiliated. 

  1. Measures in regard to reviewers

In the case of offenses committed by reviewers, these will be communicated to the institution to which he/she is affiliated. In addition, and depending on the gravity of the offense, any of the following measures may be taken:

  1. Their exclusion from the list of reviewers.
  2. Publishing a note regarding the case. 

Research in human beings or animals

Should the article submitted be the outcome of research involving human beings or animals, the submission will have to include a favourable judgement from an ethics committee. The article will be preliminarily rejected should the submission omit the above-mentioned judgement. 

Interpretation of ethical regulations

In case of doubt, the meaning and scope of the present regulations will be established by whoever is in charge of the journal, in accordance with the International Editorial Board and with the publication’s international ethics standards and the sources used when preparing these regulations. 

(*) The ethics guidelines here published are a modified version of the ethics guidelines of the journals Derecho PUCP and Lexis. The Boletín de Arqueología PUCP is responsible for the contents here presented.

References

Academic good practice – a practical guide. Oxford: University of Oxford. Accessed at 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. Berliin: 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. Accessed at 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. (n.d.). Flowcharts. Accessed at ttps://publicationethics.org/guidance/Flowcharts 

World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki – Ethical Principles For Medical Research Involving Human Subjects. Accessed at https://www.wma.net/policies-post/wma-declaration-of-helsinki-ethical-principles-for-medical-research-involving-human-subjects/

Singapore Statement on Research Integrity. Accessed at https://www.wcrif.org/downloads/main-website/singapore-statements/223-singpore-statement-a4size

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. Accessed at 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. Accessed at 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. Accessed at 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. (n.d.). Manual de normas éticas y buenas prácticas. Accessed at 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. Accessed at 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. Accessed at http://www.academicintegrity.eu/wp/ wp-content/uploads/2018/11/Guidelines_final.pdf 

Turnitin. (2017). White paper: The plagiarism spectrum. Accessed at 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 and N. Steneck (eds.), Promoting Research Integrity in a Global Environment (pp. 309-316). Singapore: Imperial College Press, World Scientific Publishing. Accessed at https://publicationethics.org/files/International%20standard_ editors_for%20website_11_Nov_2011.pdf 

World Association of Model Editors (WAME) policy statements. Accessed at 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