Focus and scope   

Revista Facultad de Ciencias Económicas is an open-source refereed journal intended to being a channel to disseminate knowledge related to administrative, accounting and economic disciplines. Its topics are accounting, management, strategy, finances, business, entrepreneurship and business innovation.

Its main objective is to become a platform in which different communities of researchers make contributions about the reality of the economy and organizations, both in the Colombian and in the Latin American context, for the construction of development models that respond to a multiple and complex reality.

The journal publishes unpublished articles that respond to criteria of relevance, originality and thematic relevance, written in Spanish, English and Portuguese. It is aimed at professors and researchers, and at organizations involved in research or application of knowledge in the different specialties of administrative, accounting and economic sciences. It is not aimed at undergraduate students or to contribute in co-authorship with them, but it is aimed at students of Master's or Doctorates. To reduce institutional endogamy, contributions from members of the New Granada community (officials, students, teachers, directors, etc.) are not accepted.

Frequency of publication is biannual: the first issue is published in the January-June period, and the second in the July-December period, in electronic format. The printed version responds merely to promotional purposes and only the copies necessary to comply with the requirements of the Legal Deposit in Colombia are printed.

Publication cycle

The journal receives the submission of articles in accordance with the calls for papers published online, for its miscellaneous or monographic (thematic) issues, without this generating any Article Processing Charges (APC) for the author. The publication of the articles is subject to the order of arrival and the results of their evaluation, considering the submission and the publication cycle.

Submittal

• Submission of articles for evaluation will be carried out exclusively through the current editorial management system OJS (Open Journal System). In no case submittals will be accepted outside of said system. This seeks to guarantee the traceability, transparency, monitoring and quality of the editorial and scientific process to which the articles are subjected.
• Articles shall be submitted by the author, but not before reviewing the requirements described in the "Guidelines for authors" section.
• The article shall be sent without any data that could be used to identify its authors. Metadata corresponding to the authors must be registered directly on the platform: Orcid code, institutional affiliation, city, country and institutional email. No further biographical data of the author shall be included, such as degrees, multiple affiliations, acknowledgments, memberships; this information will be included in the profile (Orcid), which can be consulted online

Editorial review process

• Article reception and editorial screening. Once the article is received, it will be subjected to a preliminary review, that is, a filter, which will be carried out by the journal in approximately 45 calendar days. All articles will be verified in their formal aspects, in accordance with the "Guidelines for authors", and will be submitted to the Turnitin tool to verify respect for copyright.
• Filter review. The editorial team will carry out a preliminary review of the article and its respective application documents to ensure that they fully meet the criteria indicated in the Guidelines for authors of the ”Facultad de Ciencias Económicas” In case some inconvenient is found in this stage by the journal team
• Peer review. If the article passes the editorial filter, peers will be selected and invited under the "double blind" system. Authors will receive the official response from the journal maximum in six months, according to the volume of articles under evaluation and the response and acceptance of the referees by the invited reviewers.
• Correctios and review results. Articles can be approved without modifications, approved with minor modifications, approved with major modifications (which involve a considerable correction of the article and, sometimes, a new evaluation cycle) or rejected. Articles that were rejected will not be able to be resubmitted for future evaluation and publication cycles.

Based on the results of the reviewers’ concepts, the Editor will make a final decision on the publication of the article. This decision may be based on one or more concepts, approving or rejecting, according to the editor criteria on the quality of the article or on the publishing time of the volume the article was submitted for. If, for example, an article obtains an approval review result subject to major modifications, the editor may decide that it is not accepted, cease its editorial process in the journal and, later, receive it again to inaugurate a new publication cycle. If, for example, only one peer reviewer agrees to review the article despite the fact that the Editor sent multiple invitations to different people to perform the arbitration, the concept of that single reviewer will be sufficient input to support the Editor's decision on publication or rejection of the article. Likewise, if the peer reviewers suggest modifications to the article, the editor will ask the authors for a cover letter of the corrected version or a reply letter, explaining each change they made, as well as the way to address the peer recommendations or no, for academic or scientific reasons. The corrected versions will be reviewed by the editor or, again, by peers; after this, the final notification about the approval or rejection of the article will be sent.

Publishing and dissemination process.

Articles approved by the editor, in the peer review, will be subjected to a professional editing process that begins with the style correction. This consists of a revision of the writing of the text, its syntax and spelling, as well as the observance of the editorial conventions and the use of sources and citation. When authors are notified of these corrections, they will have seven calendar days to approve and supplement the correction. After this time, if the authors do not send their response, the journal will assume that they have approved all the corrections sent and will proceed to the layout phase.

The final version derived from the article's style correction will be adjusted to the magazine's design mockup. This is known as layout. The editors of the journal will make a final review to give final observations, if there is room, and approve the article for publication. The version resulting from this Editor's review, if approved, will be published.

• Publishing. Once the editing process has finished, the articles will be published online. Authors will be able to review the articles published within a term of 2 to 5 days from the document publication and request for metadata adjustments or minor layout changes. Failing to answer within the period established will be deemed as acceptance of this version and no request for changes. No changes will be made after that process.
• Post-publishing. The content published in the journal will be subjected to the necessary technical processes (markup in html, xml, etc.) that guarantee its online visibility and its inclusion in indexing and summary systems. The editors will work hand in hand with the post-publication editor of the Editorial Neogranadina to guarantee dissemination strategies so that the published articles reach the main audience of their discipline.

Evaluation system

All articles received will be subject to evaluation, starting with an editorial filter to determine the degree of compliance with their formal aspects, editorial relevance and verification with the Turnitin software. If the article approves this phase, it will be subjected to the “double blind” peer review process as described in the “publication cycle

Evaluation criteria for this phase involves the following: compliance with the guidelines established in the "Instructions for authors", scientific quality of the content and thematic relevance. Articles that do not comply with the presentation standards, that have been previously published, whether partially or totally, or that are submitted simultaneously in other publications, as well as articles that make improper use of texts protected by copyright or whose content do not correspond to the thematic spectrum of the magazine will be rejected

• Peer review. Articles that have approved the initial phase will be reviewed by external peers, who will review the content, methodology, novelty and contribution to the discipline. This process will take between three and seven months for the reviewers to give their concept which may be “approved”, “rejected”, or “approved with modifications”, and then the corrections made by the author will be verified if necessary.

Evaluation concepts issued by academic peers on articles are key inputs to ground and justify the Editor decisions and not binding judgments for the editorial team forcing them to publish or reject the article. In case an article receives opposite concepts, the Editor may ask new reviewers or issue his/her own concept to settle the contracting results of the evaluation.

General criteria for the evaluation are:

• Scientific quality. It is related to the contributions to research, concordance between the objective, results and conclusions; data veracity, object of study defined, methodological rigor of the research and its originality, as well as the relevance and contribution it makes to its area of knowledge
• Linguistic quality. It refers to compliance with grammatical and spelling aspects, as well as its discursive coherence and the use of quality bibliographic sources.
• Ethical aspects. It refers to the authorization of the publication when experiments are carried out on humans or animals, disclosures of conflicts of interest, responsibility to present truthful data and results, the need for the appropriate use of sources protected by copyright, etc.

The evaluation process is supported on quality, based on external evaluation, the selection of evaluators with a scientific background and objective feedback to the author. In the selection of reviewers for the journal, aspects such as:

• The pre-selection of qualified referees, according to the thematic spectrum of the journal, and with the particular topic of each article that is submitted for evaluation.
• Verification of the academic degrees of each evaluator (preferably, with a doctorate degree), their publications and their impact as researchers in the last five years.
• Balanced participation of national and international researchers, which contributes to the consolidation of scientific knowledge networks and prevents conflicts of interest of any kind.
• Quality of the evaluation carried out by the referees, so that it is professional, rigorous and focuses on scientific arguments and on giving useful guidance to the authors.

Journal editorial structure aspects

Editorial structure: editor, committee and reviewers

The magazine is made up of an editor, who has an editorial team; in addition, it has an editorial and scientific committee. Its editing process is directly accompanied by the Editorial Neogranadina, for aspects of structure and editorial plan, and externally, by reviewers, previously selected by the editor

Member selection and criteria

• The editor, the committee and the reviewers should have a verifiable academic and scientific background, with recent and valid publications (within the last five years)v in duly index category journals (national and international) and visible in the main international indexing systems (Scielo, Scopus, Web of Science, Redalyc, etc.) and a Master’s or PhD educational level in the field of knowledge in the journal disciplinary area.
• Permanence of the editorial team members in the journal is subject to periodic evaluations by the Editorial Neogranadina to determine its contribution to he management, scientific quality and visibility of the journal.
• In order to avoid possible conflicts of interests and endogamy, the journal, advised by the Editorial Neogranadina, reserves the right to admit members with affiliation to the editorial entity (Universidad Militar Nueva Granada) in its committees .

Functions

Editorial and scientific committee. Editor advisory bodies, when needed to make decisions on the journal policy, strategies, and editorial projects, under scientific criteria to improve the publication impacts. They advise the editor to define the journal’s thematic trends, positioning and orientation and they also support compliance with and adoption of editorial quality of the publication.

Editor. He/she is in charge of consolidating the editorial policies as well as the management and  decision-making of each article published in the journal. The editor leads the article evaluation and edition process, requesting the author any reviews necessary for its publication.  

The editor shall select, evaluate and follow-up on the reviewers participating in the referee process, ensuring transparence and efficiency of that process, aimed at an optimal editorial quality.

As part of the journal’s positioning and visibility in the discipline scientific and academic context, the editor and his/her team will be responsible for indexing, sharing and disseminating the published content, based on participation in scientific events and the inclusion or updating of the journal in international systems and databases, with the advice of the Editorial Neogranadina.

Editorial Assistant. The editorial assistant is in charge of supporting the journal editorial processes and establishing an immediate communication point between the editors and the Editorial Neogranadina. Their functions include monitoring the editorial processes through OJS and ensuring proper review and registration of the metadata of each article.

Reviewers. They are researchers specialized in the lines that make up the thematic spectrum defined by the journal, with the ability to critically and scientifically evaluate articles, to identify contributions to the discipline, based on the criteria defined in the review process and its guidelines.

Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice Statement

Our publication ethics and publication malpractice principles are based on the suggestions of the following organizations that provide, guidelines, codes and procedures with wide international use:

• Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE): regarding ethical aspects of editorial terms in terms of author, editor and reviewer committee members.
• Council of Science Editors (CSE): an organization that deals with matters of integrity of scientific publications, conflicts of interest, licenses and authorship, among others
• International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE): a committee that mainly deals with aspects of anonymity, informed consent and protection of individuals participating in research published by the journal.

Likewise, the journal recognizes and adopts the  Principles of transparency and best practices un academic edition  defined and endorsed by DOAJ, OASPA and WAME; the recommendations recorded in the document known as San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment  (DORA) on the good use of citation metrics and the responsibilities established by the  Singapore Statement on Research Integrity .

 

Considering the parameters established by the aforementioned resources, the journal has defined the following ethical guidelines for all the actors in its publication processes in accordance with their respective roles in the editorial cycle of each article.

 

• Authors

1.  Authors who submit articles in the journal undertake to guarantee respect for copyright, as well as the protection of information and other aspects related to the preparation and publication of research.
2. Article authors for this publication are considered only researchers who have  (1)  graduate academic degrees or (2) who are candidates for obtaining graduate degrees at the time of submitting an article. Teachers, consultants, undergraduate students or research assistants may be included as co-authors of the article if their contribution to the article preparation is significant and if endorsed by the main author or its correspondent. Otherwise, their names can only be included in the article acknowledgments.
3. The researcher shall comply with the formal aspects of submission, guaranteeing the originality of the research, without plagiarism and without prior publication, in another means, under any model. Salami publications, with self-plagiarism and simultaneous submission in other journals, will be rejected.
4. Conflicts of interest shall be disclosed in a timely manner and duly disclosed in the article.
5. The authors included in the research assume, entirely, the responsibility of its content and the actions that may derive from it.
6. Researchers have the obligation to recognize the participation of authors who actually mad contributions to the articles, without resorting to false authorship or the inclusion of authors who do not contribute to the development of the research. In this sense, they will disclose  the specific contribution that each co-author has made in the letter accompanying the submission of the article.
7. The authors accept the evaluation model defined by the journal; therefore, they undertake to provide a timely, professional and respectful response to the observations made by the editor, the peer reviewer and the production editor, in the various stages of the process.
8. Submitting articles for a review process without the real intention of going through with it is considered as an inappropriate conduct. Withdrawal of an article after being approved, and during the editorial process, must be duly justified. Authors who are found using the journal to improve their articles through the referee process, without the intention of publishing them, will be penalized for engaging in this practice. The journal will not process new submissions of articles by such authors.

• Editor

1. The editor undertakes to guarantee proper development of the journal processes, in an ethical manner and assuming responsibility for its publication.
2. The editor will make fair and impartial decisions, regardless of the context, ensuring a fair and appropriate peer review process for authors.
3. The editor will adopt editorial policies that guarantee maximum transparency and honesty during the article evaluation, editing and publication.
4. The editor protects the journal integrity by issuing corrections and retractions derived from the editorial process or from suspicious ethical practices that are detrimental to the scientific quality of the articles published by the journal. To carry out these processes, the editor must adopt the Retraction Guidelines established by COPE
5. The editor will promptly follow up on inappropriate behavior by reviewers, authors, or committee members, based on continuous monitoring.
6. All studies involving participation of humans or animals must be critically evaluated based on compliance with international ethical standards, which have defined the corresponding guidelines, and must be accompanied by a letter of approval from the ethics committee.
7. Authors, reviewers and committee members shall have prior knowledge of what is expected from them, based on the editorial policies, guidelines and forms defined by the editor, to guarantee the proper use and  management of contents.
8. The editor shall disclose any possible conflicts of interest that he/she may have when receiving and evaluating an article, in order to make a management decision that does not compromise any process of the journal.

 

• Evaluators

1. The evaluator will be selected by the editor and the editorial team, based on compliance with criteria such as: academic training, number of publications in recognized sources and impact of their production in the area.
2. The evaluator agrees to accept to read an article, if his/her level of experience, knowledge and current commitments allow him/her to issue a reasoned and timely concept.
3. The evaluator assumes the responsibility of guaranteeing a sufficient review, which allows the authors to understand the reasons for their concept, and which includes the assessment of methodological, content and structural aspects.
4. Impersonation is considered an inappropriate practice during the review process. The person who accepts responsibility for the evaluation process is the researcher who has been called to be an evaluator. In no case participation of a third party is accepted (eg, research assistants, doctoral students, postgraduates, monitors, other colleagues), without the consent of the editor
5. The evaluator has the responsibility and commitment to timely disclose any conflicts of interest that may arise during the evaluation of an assigned article. Conflicts can be: personal, financial, intellectual or professional.
6. The evaluator’s using any materials or pieces of the article under evaluation is considered inappropriate. In no case, evaluators are authorized to use completely or partially data of the article assigned for his/her review. Likewise, it is inappropriate for the evaluator to accept reviews of research that are very active and similar to one he/she is currently carrying out.
7. It is the evaluator’s responsibility to give a timely response to any requests related to the article they are reading, according to the times agreed with the journal.
8.  Otherwise, the evaluator will have to notify the editor about the changes in the delivery schedule of their concept, so that the process for the authors or the journal is not affected.
9. The evaluator has read, understands and follows the editorial policies defined by the journal.
10. The evaluator shall notify the journal on any inappropriate conducts identified in the article under review  and shall provide the arguments and supporting information on his suspicion of plagiarism, data fabrication, data manipulation, publication duplication, among others.
11.  The evaluation process Will be carried out according to instructions provided by the journal,  in its platforms and forms.
12. Evaluators shall refrain from suggesting the authors on quoting them or their colleagues to generate higher number of citations. If such suggestion is made, it should be based on academic, scientific, or technical reasons duly justified.
13. Evaluators shall remain active in the evaluation process (e.g.  if corrections are suggested), so that the editor can have their criteria and advise to verify that the article was sufficiently and coherently adjusted. Now, as the refereeing process is an academic interaction space, evaluators shall be willing to elaborate on some of the aspects of their concept, so that authors can solve any doubts or understand better the recommendations.

 

Publisher

1. Editorial Neogranadina, Publishing Brand of the Universidad Militar Nueva Granada, should ensure permanent availability and preservation of all research material published by the journal.

 

2. Editorial Neogranadina should make available to the editorial team all the means necessary to identify and prevent publication of articles whose authors have incurred in research malpractice. If the team identifies that an application or a published article is breaching, the Editorial Neogranadina shall promptly publish the Journal’s erratum, clarification or retraction depending on the severity of the behavior identified.

 

If an author, evaluator or reader wants to report a malpractice case or a problem that they have identified in a published article, as well as to report any difficulties or differences they have had with any member of the editorial team or in the development of a process in the journal, they should first contact the editorial team at  economia.neogranadina@unimilitar.edu.co o asistenteeditorial.revistas1@unimilitar.edu.co to seek solutions or clarifications to the issues raised. In case the editorial team is unable to explain the concerns raised or solve them, authors, reviewers and readers may communicate these same concerns to the Editorial Neogranadina by email at editorial.neogranadina@unimilitar.edu.co, so that a  solution agreed by the parties can be reached.

Access and Authors’ Rights

Processing and publication expenses are assumed by Nueva Granada Military University, in the interest of fostering scientific communication and contributing to the production, validation, and diffusion of arbitrated scientific knowledge.

Additionally, the journal establishes the relationship with its readers through the use of a Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial-No Derivatives 4.0 license, in its latest version, which allows the following options:

• downloading and sharing articles, provided that the authorship of the work is recognized, without modifying or using it for trading purposes.
• authors to share and self-archive articles in their profiles, social networks, and online repositories.

With respect to the relationship between the authors and the journal, an ethical commitment and an assignment of rights are required, under the terms of the Editorial Neogranadina letter-format, which considers the following elements:

• Authors undertake to guarantee the proper use of sources used in the development of their research, quoting and including the corresponding references. The University is exempt from all responsibility deriving from the misuse of other works.
• Authors are responsible for complying with ethical and scientific integrity rules. The University is exempt from all responsibility deriving from ethical malpractices in which the author may participate during the creation, development, and publication of the work, which may lead to the manipulation, error or falsification of data and results.
• Coauthors will only be considered as such if they participated creatively and fundamentally in the preparation of the work. In case of authorship conflicts, it is the corresponding author’s duty to account for each author’s contribution to the article. No subsequent inclusions will be accepted. However, if the withdrawal of any author’s name is requested, the journal will require an authorization signed by all authors involved in the article (including the author withdrawing from the publication), explaining the reasons for the request.

This is an open access journal which means that all content is freely available without charge to the user or his/her institution. Users are allowed to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of the articles, or use them for any other lawful purpose contemplated by our CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 license, without asking prior permission from the publisher or the author. This is in accordance with the BOAI definition of open access.

Self-Archiving and Digital Preservation

The journal uses the Pórtico system to create a permanent archive backup, with the purpose of preserving and restoring published content.

Per the Sherpa Romeo classification, the self-archive policy includes the possibility to deposit the postprint (latest version of an article subsequent to the peer-review process) and the editor’s version and is marked in blue.