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.