Ethics Policy

Encartes maintains ethical codes for reviewers, authors and editors based on the codes of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), available at https://publicationethics.org/

Editorial decisions will not be affected by the origin of the manuscript or by author characteristics such as nationality, gender, sexual orientation, ethnicity, race, religious beliefs, or political philosophy of the authors.

The decision to publish an article is independent of governmental policies or other agencies external to the journal.

Responsibilities of editors

They should take responsibility for what is published in their journal. They should look for ways to improve the journal, attend to the needs and questions of the authors, prevent other non-academic needs from compromising the ethical standards of the journal, be willing to publish corrections, clarifications, rectifications and apologies, if necessary.

2. Maintain accessible the description of the evaluation process and the guide of procedures to submit an article for evaluation.
3. Ensure the confidentiality of the authors of manuscripts from the time they are received until the end of their evaluation.
4. Protect the intellectual property and copyrights of the manuscripts.
5. Use appropriate tools, such as anti-plagiarism software -for example, Turnitin-, to detect scientific misconduct by authors.
6. Ask reviewers to comment on authors' misconduct.
7. Inform the author about the progress of the evaluation.
8. Send the authors the full comments of the evaluators, except when they are offensive or defamatory.
9. Inform the author of the stage of the editorial process in which the article is.
10. They will not use or disclose information from the articles before they are published, without prior consent of the author.

Responsibilities of the Editorial Coordination Team Members

1. The decision to accept or reject an article will be based on its quality, clarity, originality and relevance for publication in the journal.
2. The members of the Committee will establish the editorial parameters and revise them frequently so that the journal maintains its quality.
3. New members of the Editorial Committee may not reverse publication decisions made prior to their appointment, unless the manuscript in question presents serious problems.
4. They will not reveal the identity of the authors until the articles are published.
5. They will keep the names of the reviewers anonymous.
6. Ensure that manuscripts are reviewed by appropriate reviewers.
7. Ensure that the evaluation process is objective, clear and transparent.
8. Resolve any controversy that arises during the evaluation process.
9. Issue corrections, clarifications, rectifications, and apologies, if necessary.
10. If they detect scientific misconduct on the part of the authors, they will immediately inform the editors.
11. They will publish how they have solved controversies or cases of authors who do not observe the clauses of this code of conduct.

Responsibilities of the authors

1. Authors should ensure that:

Their manuscript has not been published and is not being evaluated in other publications.

The information contained in the manuscript has been collected in an ethical manner.

The article submitted is original and that references and data from other works have been cited appropriately.

2. Acknowledge as co-authors those who have participated in a significant way in the content of the article.
3. They will give credit to the translators of all or parts of the article.
4. State in the manuscript the sources of financial support for the research.
5. Follow the guidelines for submission of articles, published on the journal's web site and defined by the Editorial Committee.
6. Follow the indications of the evaluation phases and observe the deadlines for corrections and corrections.
7. Must ensure that they have in their possession the authorizations to reproduce and print the material that is not their property or authorship (graphs, maps, diagrams, photographs, etc.).
8. Sign a letter authorizing the journal to edit, publish and distribute their article in printed and electronic media.

Responsibilities of reviewers

1. If the manuscript they have been asked to evaluate is subject to a conflict of interest, they will declare it immediately.
2. They will inform the editor if they consider that they are not qualified to perform the evaluation.
3. They will inform the editors if they detect scientific misconduct in the manuscript.
4. They will express their comments clearly, objectively and respectfully in the evaluation format provided by the journal.
5. They will carry out the evaluation and notify the result within 30 calendar days.
6. They will treat the result of the evaluation with confidentiality.
7. They will not use or disclose the information contained in the manuscript prior to its publication.

They are considered bad scientific practices:

Lack of ethics in the publication process.

- Fictitious authorship: appearing as authors or co-authors of research that has not been carried out.

- Duplicate publication: publishing all or part of an already published article.

- Fragmented publication: splitting up a paper for publication as independent articles.

- Inflated publication: adding data to a previously published paper for publication as a new article.

- Self-plagiarism: repeating the same content previously written by the author with the intention of publishing as a new article.

Scientific fraud

- Invention: elaboration of all or part of the data.

- Falsification and manipulation of data: falsifying data or methods to fulfill the hypothesis.

- Plagiarism: taking ideas or phrases without citing the original source.

Incorrection of bibliographic citations: omitting relevant citations. Including citations not consulted. Excessive self-citation.

- Publication bias: forcing data to obtain positive results and high statistical significance.

¬- Publicity: exposing premature results (without verification).

Process for Identifying and Addressing Allegations of Research Misconduct

If misconduct is detected, the sanction or resolution will be guided by COPE codes and flowcharts.

Manuscripts that engage in these practices will not be evaluated. The editor will write to the author, explaining that the article is rejected, the journal's position in these cases and the expected behavior in the future. He/she will also inform the reviewer.

If it is detected that sentences of lesser length have been copied and there is no indication that the data of others have been offered as the author's own work, the editor will write to the author and request that he/she modify those parts or indicate the citations clearly. He/she will also inform the reviewer. If the author refuses to correct the manuscript, the article will be rejected, the journal's position in these cases and the expected behavior in the future will be explained.

The journal Encartes adheres to the ethical production of knowledge. It is open to receive complaints of research misconduct, plagiarism, manipulation of citations and fabrication of data, among others. The denunciation will be received by the editor and will be turned to the Editorial Team, which will appoint a commission to make an exhaustive investigation and verify the denunciation. In case of plagiarism, it will be ruled under the Mexican legal system. The results of such opinion will be informed to both the plaintiff and the defendant. In the event that the accusation proceeds, the necessary measures will be taken to sanction or amend the fault. In the event that the Team decides that it does not proceed, the plaintiGff will also be notified within a maximum period of one month. In the event that the editor(s) of Encartes becomes aware of any allegation of research misconduct related to an article published in its journal, the editor will follow the guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics-COPE (or equivalent) in dealing with the allegations.