Editorial ethics statement

 

 

Publication Ethics Statement

Debates en Sociología adheres to the ethical guidelines proposed by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ), and the Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú research ethics declaration (PUCP, 2011, articles 8-12). The commitments and actions against bad practices of the different actors involved in the journal are detailed below:

 

AUTHORS

Editorial guidelines. The authors declare that they have read our editorial guidelines and understand the editorial process that their manuscripts follow once submitted to the journal. This includes adhering to the current citation standard of the American Psychological Association (APA), keeping their manuscripts anonymous for review, among other aspects detailed in this link.

Duplicate and recycled publications. Manuscripts sent to Debates in Sociología should not be participating in evaluation processes in other academic publications. Texts should not have been previously published in other academic publications, with exceptions such as the case of translations, expansions of research presented at conferences or similar, or adaptations made from larger research of their own authorship. For these exceptions, the authors must have the proper permission and indication of the nature of their text and thus avoid self-plagiarism or recycling of publication. This includes textual material, as well as graphs, figures, tables and any other type of material reproduced or included in the submitted manuscript.

Plagiarism. Any form of plagiarism, including self-plagiarism, is fully prohibited and sanctioned. This includes the partial, complete, or fragmentary use of ideas, graphic material, tables and any other element that is not the author's own and that does not have the proper reference cited in text.

Use of graphic materials. Any graphic material (photographs, drawings, diagrams, statistical graphs, diagrams, tables, illustrations) must have the necessary permissions for its reproduction. Here are included the graphic materials of made by the authors which have been previously published in other mediums (academic or not).

Source management. The sources on which the text is based should be, as far as possible, accessible. The authors are responsible for the verification and reliability of the primary sources (for example, interviews or data collected by third parties) used as secondary sources in the text. Information collection methods must have consent and protect the identity of the people involved.

Intellectual property. The authors pledge to respect the intellectual property rights of third parties, avoiding plagiarism. In cases of multiple authorship for a submitted manuscript, they must previously agree on the order of appearance of every author, as well as avoid omitting authorship. All authors of the same text are subject to responsibility if any dispute arises due to authorship or plagiarism. Any acknowledgements for contributions to the text that do not require co-authorship should be included. For reference on contribution roles for academic texts, you can review the CRediT Contributor Roles Taxonomy.

Conflict of interest. The authors must notify the editorial team of any condition that affects the neutrality and treatment of the information used and contained in their manuscripts. If any undeclared conflict of interest is detected, the journal will take the measures deemed necessary depending on each case, including retracting the published text or suspending the evaluation process.

Mistakes and changes to published texts. Authors must report any error identified in their text once it has been published, as well as the changes necessary to correct said error.

Responsibility. All authors of the same manuscript are responsible for the entirety of their text.

Actions against malpractice. If the commitments established here are not respected, the journal will communicate with those involved and, depending on the case, with the institutions to which they declare affiliation to clarify the faults or eventualities occurred. The authors are responsible for providing any explanatory information. Each case will be treated individually following the rules and guidelines of the COPE. Malpractice may be grounds for suspending or annulling the review process of a text; to be temporarily removed from publication; or to have their publication completely retracted. Any sanction and decision in the event of an ethical offense will be previously communicated. The decisions of the Editorial Committee are unappealable.

 

PEER REVIEWERS

Conflict of interest and reviewing ethics. The reviewers must notify of any conditions affecting the neutrality and impartiality in their evaluation of assigned texts. Reviewers pledge to give a constructive and assertive opinion, which contributes to the editorial decision and the sustained quality of the journal. They must avoid making personal judgments, hostile or derogatory expressions, as well as any assessment based on nationality, religion, gender identity, political ideology and other characteristics inferred from the read manuscript.

Suitability. Reviewers must notify the editorial team if they consider that they do not have sufficient academic experience to evaluate the assigned manuscript.

Commitment and time limits.  Peer reviewers pledge to respect established deadlines. If they were to consider the agreed upon deadline too short, harming the quality of their review, they should notify the editorial team, who will decide on a deadline extension or on selecting a new reviewer.

Confidentiality. The content of the evaluation and of the assigned manuscript must not be disseminated or discussed with other people, or in public contexts. The contents of the manuscript must be used only to carry out the evaluation and not for personal or institutional purposes. We recommend destroying the assigned manuscript once the evaluation is done. The review process is confidential before, during and after completion. Reviewers should not reveal their identity to authors even after the assigned manuscript has been published or rejected.

Recommendations and suggestions to authors. Suggestions or recommendations that compromise the neutrality and confidentiality of the evaluation process should be avoided. Reviewers should not recommend the authors of the manuscript to reference their own academic production. Recommendations that allow the improvement of the article without affecting the anonymity and confidentiality of the evaluation will be valued.

Research ethics. Peer reviewers have the duty to inform in their opinion of any detection of irregularities such as: plagiarism (in any modality), mismanagement of sources, failures in data processing, among others.

 

EDITORS AND MEMBERS OF THE EDITORIAL TEAM

Transparency in processes. The editorial team of Debates in Sociología is fully committed to transparency in the editorial process: Calls for papers, manuscript reception, reviewer selection, peer review process, editing and publication. Editorial decisions are based on the editorial standards established by the journal and the evaluations of the convened peer reviewers.

Neutrality. The editorial process filters the manuscripts received only based on compliance with editorial standards and the academic merit of their content, without discrimination based on origin, nationality, race, religion, gender identity, sexual orientation, political ideology, etc.

Plagiarism. All manuscripts are filtered through anti-plagiarism software. The editorial team reviews each report issued by said software in detail. Manuscripts that exceed 20% coincidences will be rejected from the review process, after notifying the authors of the text. The results of these anti-plagiarism checks are kept confidential. If, after publication, evidence of plagiarism arises, the text will be retracted as indicated by the COPE retraction guidelines.

Peer reviewer selection. Peer reviewers are selected and convened maintaining the suitability, parity and neutrality with respect to the manuscript to be evaluated. They have no employment relationship with the journal and their only remuneration is the awarding of a digital review certificate issued by the journal.

Confidentiality. Editorial team members must not disclose or discuss in public contexts any editorial processes carried out.

Conflict of interest. The editorial team and editors will not use the content of the submitted manuscripts in research without the consent of the authors. Any instance of unreported conflict of interest will be sanctioned in accordance with the COPE guidelines in this regard.

Open Access. Debates en Sociología is a non-profit scholarly publication funded by our publishing institution, we have no Article Processing Charges for authors, no financial compensation to peer reviewers, and the full journal archive is available for consultation free of charge.

Retraction. The retraction of published texts is reserved for cases in which the results or conclusions have serious defects and cannot be trusted, as well as in other instances indicated in the COPE retraction guidelines. Minor edits resulting from proofreading or typographical corrections are admissible, however, any major changes will be made following the COPE guidelines.

Mistakes and changes to published texts. Errors or requests for changes in already published texts should be notified to the editorial team, who will determine the relevance of said requests. The journal will publish an errata if an author is responsible for an error, and a corrigendum if the journal is responsible for an error.

Communication. The journal is committed to disseminating the contents published in it after the publication of each number. The communication channels available for this are the official social networks of the journal, as well as the mailing lists maintained by the journal.

Archiving. Journal archives must be kept public and available even if the journal or publisher ceases to exist.

 

ATTENTION TO COMPLAINTS

The journal receives complaints from authors and reviewers. Complaints must be justified and will be handled following the COPE guidelines and the journal’s internal regulations. Authors and reviewers should avoid communicating directly with members of the editorial body (directors, editors, editorial committee) for complaints and claims. The communication channel for these cases is the official email of the journal: revistadebates@pucp.edu.pe.

Complaints about review processes are subject to the following conditions:

• The identity of the reviewers will not be revealed for any reason.
• The reviewers' aptitude will not be questioned.
• The evidence in the case must be identified and duly substantiated.

Complaints of undetected plagiarism arising during the review process of the texts will be investigated. If confirmed, the manuscript will be withdrawn from the journal and all its published iterations.

If any claim of authorship arises, the journal will act as a mediator between the conflicting parties and will deliberate on a case-by-case basis.

 

Debates en Sociología
Lima, September 2021