https://doi.org/10.18359/issn.1657-4702

REVISTA LATINOAMERICANA DE BIOÉTICA

EDITORIAL POLICY

ABOUT THE MAGAZINE

 

Focus and scope  

 

The Revista Latinoamericana de Bioética (Latin American Journal of Bioethics) is a biannual (Jan-Jun and Jul-Dec) peer-reviewed open access scientific publication founded in 2000 by the Faculty of Education and Humanities of the Universidad Militar Nueva Granada. The Journal aims to be a channel for the dissemination of knowledge in Bioethics and its multi and interdisciplinary dialogue with other fields of knowledge such as health, life, and social and humanistic sciences.

 

In its more than twenty years, the purpose of the journal has been to provide a venue for the publication and dissemination of work in the area of bioethics in Latin America. However, the Revista Latinoamericana de Bioética has always been attentive and in communication with the bioethical work developed in Latin America and, in general, in the world, which is why it is addressed to members of the scientific community both nationally and internationally, for the construction of development models that respond to a multiple and complex reality.

 

The journal publishes unpublished articles that meet the criteria of relevance, originality and thematic pertinence, written in Spanish, English and Portuguese. It is addressed to professors, researchers, graduate students (masters-doctorate), and organizations involved in research or application of knowledge in the different areas of bioethics.

 

The publication frequency is biannual in electronic format. The printed version responds only to promotional purposes and only the necessary copies are printed to comply with the requirements of the Legal Deposit and institutional exchange in Colombia.

 

Publication cycle

 

The journal receives submitted articles on a permanent basis through the OJS (Open Journal Systems) platform. In addition, it sets forth calls for its miscellaneous or monographic (thematic) issues, without generating any payment for processing costs (APC) to the author. The Universidad Militar Nueva Granada is responsible for all expenses and costs involved in content management, production cycle, publication and dissemination through Editorial Neogranadina. The publication of articles is subject to the order of arrival and the results of peer review, taking into account the dates of receipt of the article and the publication cycle.

 

1. Submission (OJS, preliminary evaluation)

 

Submission of articles for evaluation will take place exclusively through the current editorial management system OJS (Open Journal System). In no case will submissions outside this system be accepted. This aims to guarantee the traceability, transparency, follow-up and quality of the editorial and scientific process to which the articles are submitted.

 

The submission of articles will be made by the author, but not before reviewing the requirements described in the section "Instructions for authors".

 

The metadata corresponding to the authors should be registered directly in the platform: ORCID code, highest academic degrees obtained, institutional affiliation, city, country and institutional e-mail.

 

Once the article is received, the journal will carry out a preliminary review, i.e., a filter, which will be applied in approximately twenty (20) calendar days. All articles will be checked for formal aspects, according to the "Instructions for Authors", and will undergo similarity analysis using the Turnitin anti-plagiarism tool. In case any inconvenience is detected at this stage, the journal team will contact the authors, either to request corrections or to reject the application.

 

The continuation of the editorial cycle of the article is subject to the completion by the author of the suggested changes and their verification by the editorial team.

 

2. 2. Review (double blind system)

 

Peer review. If the article passes the editorial filter, the selection and invitation to the peers will be made under the double-blind system. Authors will receive the official response from the journal within three to five months, depending on the volume and the timely response of the peer reviewers to our invitation.

 

Articles may be approved without modifications, approved with modifications or rejected.

 

Based on the results of the evaluators' opinions, the editor will make a final decision on the publication of the article. This decision may be based on one or more approving or unfavorable concepts, according to the editor's criteria on the quality of the article or the publication times of the issue to which the article was submitted.

 

If, for example, an article has a positive result subject to modifications, the editor may decide that it is not accepted, terminate its process in the journal and, subsequently, receive it to inaugurate a new publication cycle. If an article has a positive and a negative concept, the editor may request a new concept to settle the situation.

 

Likewise, if the peer reviewers suggest modifications to the article, the editor will ask the authors to send a letter of presentation of the corrected version or letter of response, where they should explain each change they made, as well as how they did or did not follow the recommendations of the peers, with academic or scientific reasons. The corrected versions will be reviewed by the editor or, again, by the peers; then, the final notification on the approval or rejection of the article will be sent.

 

3. Editorial (proofreading and design)

 

Articles approved by the editor will be submitted to the following process for publication:

 

• Proofreading and cleanup. Approved articles will undergo a professional editing process that begins with proofreading, (approximately one to two months). This consists of a review of the text's wording, syntax and spelling, as well as the adoption of editorial conventions and the use of sources and citation. When the authors are notified of these corrections, they will have seven calendar days to approve and complete the correction. After this, if the authors fail to send their response, the journal will assume that they have approved all the corrections sent, and the article will be cleaned.

 

• Design and layout. The final version resulting from proofreading the article will be adjusted to the design layout of the magazine. This is known as layout. (Approximately one to two months).

 

• Final layout review and approval. The editor and the editorial assistant review and approve the article for publication, in order to ensure that all the adjustments ordered throughout the process and the quality of the metadata have been met. This last review will result in the final version for publication.

 

4. Production (online publication, post-publication)

 

• Once the editorial process is completed, the articles will be published online (estimated time of five calendar days).
• Post-publication. The content published in the journal will be submitted to the necessary technical processes to guarantee its online visibility and its inclusion in indexing and summary systems.

Likewise, the editor will agree with Editorial Neogranadina on a dissemination strategy so that the article reaches the main public of the corresponding discipline and, thus, is more easily consulted, read and replicated in professional and scientific training processes or in other researches.

 

ASPECTS OF THE JOURNAL'S EDITORIAL STRUCTURE

 

Editorial structure: editor, committees and evaluators

 

The journal is composed of an editor, who works with an editorial team consisting of an editorial assistant and, in the case of thematic or monographic issues, guest editors. It also has an editorial and scientific committee. All editorial processes carried out by the aforementioned actors are directly supported by Editorial Neogranadina, on aspects of structure and the editorial plan, and externally, by reviewers, previously selected by the editor.

 

Selection of members and criteria

 

The editor, committee members and evaluators must have a verifiable academic and scientific trajectory, with current publications (within the last five years) in duly indexed and visible journals in the main international indexing systems (Web of Science, Scopus and SciELO Citation Index), and a level of training in the area of knowledge at the doctoral level.

 

The permanence of the members of the editorial team of the journal is subject to periodic evaluations by Editorial Neogranadina, to determine their contribution to the management, scientific quality and visibility of the journal.

 

In order to avoid possible conflicts of interest and inbreeding, the journal with the advice of Editorial Neogranadina reserves the right to admit members with affiliation to the publishing entity (Universidad Militar Nueva Granada) to its committees.

 

Functions

 

Editorial and scientific committees. Bodies in charge of strategic decision making of the journal, in aspects related to editorial and impact policies for its scientific quality. They are in charge of defining thematic trends, positioning strategies and orientations of the journal, as well as of supporting the fulfillment and adoption of editorial quality parameters of the publication.

 

Editor. The editor is in charge of consolidating editorial policies, as well as managing and making decisions on each article published in the journal. The editor leads the process of evaluation and editing of the article, requesting the necessary revisions from the author to achieve a publishable version of the article.

 

The editor carries out the selection, evaluation and follow-up of the reviewers who are part of the arbitration process, guaranteeing the transparency and efficiency of the process, oriented to the optimum scientific and editorial quality. As part of the positioning and visibility of the journal in the academic and scientific context of the discipline, the editor and his/her team will be responsible for the indexing, dissemination and diffusion of the published content, based on the participation in scientific events and the inclusion or updating of the journal in international systems and databases, with the participation of Editorial Neogranadina.

 

 

 

The journal may invite an external associate editor for monographic (thematic) issues, who is an expert on the subject and is recognized in the academic and scientific environment, and will help to qualify the respective edition.

 

Editorial Assistant. In charge of supporting the editorial processes of the journal and of establishing a bridge for immediate communication between the editors and Editorial Neogranadina. His/her functions include monitoring the editorial processes through OJS and ensuring the proper review and registration of the metadata of each article.

           

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

 

Evaluation system

 

All articles received will be submitted for evaluation, starting with an editorial filter to determine the degree of compliance with formal aspects, editorial relevance and review by Turnitin anti-plagiarism software.

           

If the article passes this phase, it will be submitted to the peer review process in double-blind mode, according to which neither authors nor reviewers will have knowledge of their identities at any time during the editorial management of the article.

 

The evaluation criteria for this phase include the following: compliance with the guidelines established in the "Instructions for Authors", the scientific quality of the content and its thematic relevance. Articles will be rejected if they do not comply with the rules of presentation, if they have been previously published, partially or totally, or submitted simultaneously to other publications, as well as articles that make improper use of texts protected by copyright or whose content does not correspond to the thematic spectrum of the journal.

 

Peer review. The articles that have passed the initial phase will be evaluated by external peers, who will carry out the respective review of content, methodology, novelty and contribution to the discipline. This process will have an average duration of three to five months, during which the evaluator will give his/her concept of acceptance, rejection or approval with modifications, and will verify the corrections made by the authors, if necessary.

 

The evaluation concepts issued by academic peers on the articles are an input to support and justify the decisions of the Editor and not binding opinions for the editorial team that compel the Journal to publish or reject articles.

 

 

The Editor is responsible for determining the number of peer reviewers necessary to make editorial decisions on the publication or rejection of each article. In the event that an article receives opposing opinions, the Editor may resort to new peer reviewer; he may rely on the Scientific Committee, or may issue his/her own opinion on the article to settle contradictory evaluation results.

 

 

The general criteria for the evaluation of an article are:

 

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

 

The selection of reviewers for the journal takes into account aspects such as:

• The pre-selection of suitable reviewers, in accordance with the thematic spectrum of the journal, and with the particular topic of each article submitted for evaluation.
• Verification of the academic title of each reviewer (preferably with a doctoral degree), their publications and their impact as a researcher in the last five years.
• The balanced participation of national and international evaluators, which contributes to the consolidation of scientific knowledge networks and prevents conflicts of interest of any kind.
• The quality of the evaluation performed by the arbitrers, so that it is professional, rigorous and focused on scientific arguments and on providing useful guidelines to the authors.

 

Statement on ethics and publication malpractice

 

The ethical principles adopted by the journal are derived from the following organizations that suggest concepts, guidelines, codes and procedures of widespread international use:

 

• Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE): referent in ethical aspects of editorial practices at the level of authors, editors, committee members and reviewers.
• Council of Science Editors (CSE): organization for issues of integrity of scientific publications, conflicts of interest, licensing and authorship, among others.
• International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE): committee dedicated mainly to aspects of anonymity, informed consent and protection of persons participating in research published in the journal.

 

The journal also recognizes and adopts the Principles of Transparency and Best Practices in Scholarly Publishing defined and endorsed by DOAJ, OASPA and WAME; the recommendations recorded in the document known as the San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA) on the proper use of citation metrics and the principles and responsibilities established by the Singapore Declaration on Scientific Integrity.

 

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

 

1. Authors:

 

• Authors who submit articles to the journal undertake to ensure respect for copyright, as well as the protection of information and other aspects related to the development and publication of the research.
• Authors undertake to present the research clearly and honestly, without fabrication, falsification or inappropriate manipulation of data.
• Only researchers with (1) graduate degrees or (2) who are candidates for graduate degrees at the time of submitting an article are considered as authors of the article for this publication. Teachers, advisors, undergraduate students, or research assistants may be included as co-authors of the article if their contribution to the construction of the article warrants it and is endorsed by the main or corresponding author. Otherwise, their names may only be included in the acknowledgements of the article. The role played by each author (co-author) in the development of the article should be included in the publication.
• The researcher will comply with the formal aspects of submission, guaranteeing the originality of the research, without plagiarism and without previous publication in another medium, under any model. Salami publications with self-plagiarism and simultaneous submission to other journals will be rejected.
• Conflicts of interest will be disclosed in a timely manner and duly declared in the article.
• The authors included in the research assume full responsibility for its content and the actions that may derive from it.
• It is the obligation of the researchers to acknowledge the participation of the authors who have really contributed to the article, without resorting to false authorship or the inclusion of authors who do not contribute to the preparation of the research. In this sense, they will state the specific contribution made by each co-author in the letter accompanying the submission of the article.
• Authors adhere to the evaluation model defined by the journal; therefore, they commit to give a timely, professional and respectful response to the observations made by the editor, the peer reviewer and the production editor, at the various stages of the process.
• It is considered inappropriate behavior to submit articles to a review process without the real intention of remaining in it. The withdrawal of an article after it has been approved, and during the editorial process, must be duly justified. Authors who are identified as making use of the journal to improve their articles through arbitration, without the intention of publishing them, will be penalized for this practice. The journal will not accept new article submissions from such authors.

 

2. Editor:

• The editor is committed to ensure the proper development of the various processes of the journal in an ethical manner and to assume responsibility for its publication.
• The editor will make fair and impartial decisions, regardless of the context, ensuring a fair and appropriate peer review process for authors.

The editor will adopt editorial policies that guarantee maximum transparency and honesty during the evaluation, editing and publication of the article.

• The editor protects the integrity of the journal, issuing corrections and retractions derived from the editorial process or suspicious ethical practices that are detrimental to scientific quality.
• The editor will follow up on inappropriate conduct by reviewers, authors or committee members, based on continuous monitoring.
• All studies involving the participation of humans, animals or the environment should be critically evaluated for compliance with international ethical standards, which have defined the corresponding guidelines, and should be accompanied by a letter of approval from the ethics committee of the institution responsible for the research.
• Authors, reviewers and committee members will have prior knowledge of what is expected of them, based on the editorial policies, guidelines and formats defined by the editor, to guarantee the appropriate use and management of contents.
• The editor will express the possible conflicts of interest he/she may have when receiving and evaluating an article, in order to make a management decision that does not compromise any of the journal's processes.

 

3. Evaluators:

 

• The evaluator will be selected by the editor and the editorial team, based on the fulfillment of criteria such as: academic background, number of publications in recognized sources and impact of their production in the area.
• The reviewer agrees to accept the reading of an article, if his/her level of experience, knowledge and current commitments allow him/her to issue a well-argued and timely concept.
• The reviewer assumes the responsibility of guaranteeing a sufficient review, which allows the authors to understand the reasons for his/her concept, and which includes the evaluation of methodological, content and structural aspects.
• It is considered an inappropriate practice to impersonate another person during the review process. The responsibility for the evaluation process is assumed by the researcher who has been called to be the evaluator. In no case will the participation of a third party (e.g., research assistants, doctoral students, graduate students, monitors, other colleagues) be accepted without the consent of the editor.
• It will be the responsibility and commitment of the evaluator to state in a timely manner any conflicts of interest that may arise in the evaluation of an assigned article. Conflicts may be personal, financial, intellectual or professional.
• It is considered inappropriate conduct on the part of the reviewer to use material from an article he/she is reviewing. In no case, the evaluators are authorized to use data completely or partially from the research assigned for review. In the same way, it is inappropriate for the evaluator to accept to review research that is very active and similar to some of the research he/she is developing. (¿?)
• It is the evaluator's responsibility to give timely response to requests related to the article he/she is reading, according to the times agreed on with the journal. Otherwise, the reviewer will have to notify the editor of any changes in the delivery schedule of his/her concept, so as not to affect the process for the authors or the journal.
• The reviewer has read, understands and follows the editorial policies defined by the journal.
• The evaluator will notify the journal of inappropriate conduct that he/she identifies in the article being evaluated, and will provide arguments and support for his/her presumption of plagiarism, fabrication of data, manipulation of results, duplication of the publication, among others.
• The evaluation process will be carried out based on the instructions provided by the journal, in its platforms and formats.
• The evaluator should refrain from suggesting authors to cite him/her or his/her colleagues, in order to generate an increase in the citation. If such a suggestion is made, it must be based on duly justified academic, scientific or technical reasons.
• The reviewer will remain active in the evaluation process, if he/she suggests corrections, so that the editor can count on his/her criteria and advice to verify that the evaluated article was sufficiently and coherently adjusted. However, as the arbitration process is a space for academic interaction, the evaluator should be available to delve deeper into some aspects of its concept, so that the editor or the authors can resolve doubts or better understand the recommendations.

 

4. Publisher:

 

• Editorial Neogranadina, the publishing house of the Universidad Militar Nueva Granada, shall guarantee the permanent availability and preservation of all research material published by the journal.
• Editorial Neogranadina shall provide the editorial team with all the necessary means to identify and prevent the publication of articles whose authors have engaged in research misconduct. If the editorial team should find that a submission or a published article constitutes an incursion into such misconduct, Editorial Neogranadina shall facilitate the prompt publication of errata, clarifications or retractions by the journal, depending on the seriousness of the conduct identified.
• If an author, evaluator or reader wants to report malpractice or a problem he/she has identified in a published article, as well as to refer to difficulties or differences he/she has had with any member of the editorial team or in the development of a process in the journal, he/she should first contact the editorial team through the e-mails bioetica@unimilitar.edu.co or asistenteeditorial.revistas1@unimilitar.edu.co to seek solutions or clarifications for the issues raised. In the event that the editorial team is unable to explain the concerns raised or execute a solution for them, the authors, evaluators and readers may communicate these same concerns to Editorial Neogranadina through the email editorial.neogranadina@unimilitar.edu.co, so that a solution that is agreed upon by all parties can be defined

 

Access and copyright

Processing and publication costs are assumed by the Universidad Militar Nueva Granada, in the interest of promoting scientific communication and contributing to the production, validation and dissemination of mediated scientific knowledge.

 

Likewise, the journal establishes the relationship with its readers through the use of the Creative Commons 4.0 "Attribution - Non-commercial - No derivative works" license, in its latest version, which allows:

• Downloading and sharing, as long as the authorship of the work is acknowledged, and without making modifications to it, nor commercializing it.
• The author being able to share and self-archive the article in his/her profiles, social networks and online repositories.

 

Regarding the relationship of the authors with the journal, an ethical commitment and a cession of rights are requested, under the conditions of the letter-format of Editorial Neogranadina, which contemplates the following elements:

 

• The author undertakes to ensure the proper use of sources used in the development of his/her research, citing and including the corresponding references. The University is exempted from any liability that may arise from the inappropriate use of other works.  

 

• Compliance with ethical standards and scientific integrity is the responsibility of the authors. The University is exempted from any liability that may arise from ethical malpractice incurred by the author during the creation, development and publication of the work, and that may lead to manipulation, error or falsification of data and results.
• A co-author will only be the perrson who has a creative and fundamental participation in the preparation of the work. In case of conflicts in terms of authorship, it is the duty of the corresponding author to account for the contribution of each co-author in the article. Subsequent inclusions will not be accepted; however, if the withdrawal of the name of any author is requested, the journal will ask for an authorization signed by all the authors who are part of the article (including the author who withdraws from the publication), explaining the reasons for the request.

 

The Revista Latinoamericana de Bioética is an open access academic journal whose content is available free of charge to any user or institution. Users are authorized to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search or refer to the entire text of the articles or any other possible use within the legal framework contemplated by our CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 license, without prior consultation or authorization from the editorial team or Editorial Neogranadina. This is in accordance with the definition of open access proposed by the Budapest Open Access Initiative (BOAI).

 

Digital preservation and self-archiving

 

The journal uses the Portico system to create a permanent archive backup for the preservation and restoration of its published content.

 

The self-archiving policy, according to the Sherpa Romeo classification, corresponds to the possibility of depositing the postprint (last version of the article after the peer review process) and the editor's version, and is designated with the color blue.