Publication Ethics
Científica adheres to the guidelines and good practices of the
Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE,
publicationethics.org/),
which are known by the members of our editorial team.
We are paying close attention to the
details (glossary),
cases (guidance),
and
principles
currently being developed at COPE [1].
It is also considered necessary to mention the following statements*:
Authorship and contributorship
In Científica, attention is always paid to possible features
that show inconsistencies in the manuscripts regarding
authorship and co-authorship. The formal designation of specified
individuals or groups as authors of a scholarly work.
Authorship applies to those who have created the intellectual
content of the underlying work (eg, ideas, design, data, analysis,
tools, code, or models) or who have developed the publication
that reports and disseminates that work.
Across most definitions, three minimum requirements that qualify
individuals or groups to be authors are making a substantial intellectual contribution
to the work, approval of the work to be published,
and accepting accountability for the work and its published form.
The points on how to recognize authorship problems proposed by COPE are considered:
How to recognise potential authorship problems.
Comments, suggestions or complaints about a procedure or person
At any time, Cientifica allows the submission of comments,
suggestions or complaints both about its procedures
and from members of its professional or scientific
editorial team. When referring to a procedure,
the Editor-in-Chief meets with its actors to formulate
a precise response that will be given in no more than ten
business days. In the event that one or more members of
the professional editorial team are referred, the Editor-in-Chief,
together with those involved, will provide a response
in no more than five business days. Finally,
in the event that one or more members of the scientific
editorial team are referred, the Editor-in-Chief,
together with those involved, will provide a response in
no more than fifteen business days [2].
Conflicts of interest
Científica journal requires mandatory disclosure of any actual,
potential, or perceived conflicts of interest from authors,
reviewers, editors, and editorial staff at the time of
submission or participation in the editorial process,
using standardized declaration forms and maintaining
a publicly accessible policy that clearly defines
financial, professional, personal, and institutional
conflicts, as well as the consequences of non-disclosure.
Conflicts are identified through self-reporting,
editorial screening, third-party notifications, or
post-publication concerns. When a potential conflict
is detected, the Editor-in-Chief or a designated ethics
committee conducts a structured assessment to
determine its nature and evaluates whether it could
reasonably have compromised objectivity, the integrity
of peer review, editorial decision-making, or the
credibility of the publication, in accordance with
established best practices, including those recommended
by COPE:
Undisclosed conflict of interest in a submitted manuscript.
Policies on data sharing and reproducibility
Científica journal takes care of the scientific rigor
of the data set of both the manuscripts and the articles,
ensuring the inherent reproducibility of the research activity.
Policy on ethical oversight
In cases involving ethical oversight, the journal implements a
structured process to ensure compliance with recognised ethical
standards in research and publication practices. Upon submission,
authors are required to provide documentation demonstrating approval
from an appropriate ethics committee or institutional review board,
confirmation of informed consent for research participation and
publication when applicable, and evidence of adherence to standards
for research involving humans and animals. The editorial office
verifies that vulnerable populations are appropriately protected,
confidential data are handled responsibly, and ethical business or
marketing practices are observed. If concerns are identified during
editorial screening, peer review, or post-publication, the
Editor-in-Chief or a designated ethics committee initiates a
formal review, which may include requesting additional documentation,
consulting independent experts, or contacting the authors’ institutions.
Where non-compliance is confirmed, the journal takes proportionate
corrective actions, such as requiring clarification or amendments,
issuing corrections or expressions of concern, or retracting the
article when necessary. Throughout the process, the journal maintains
thorough documentation, ensures transparency in its decisions,
and follows established best practices, including those recommended
by the Scientific Committee, to safeguard the integrity
of the scholarly record and protect participants’ rights and interests.
Policy on intellectual property
Cientifica establishes a clear Intellectual Property
policy requiring that all submitted manuscripts be original
works that do not infringe on third-party rights, and that
authors confirm ownership of the content and secure permission
for any copyrighted materials included. Authors retain
copyright unless otherwise specified but grant the journal
a license to publish and distribute the work under defined terms,
including applicable open access licenses where relevant.
All submissions are screened for plagiarism and redundant publication,
and authors must ensure they have the legal right to share any data,
software, or supplementary materials. Reviewers and editors treat
manuscripts as confidential intellectual property and may not use
unpublished content for personal advantage. In cases of alleged
infringement, the journal conducts a formal review and may issue
corrections, remove infringing material, or retract the article
if necessary, following recognized best practices.
Post-publication discussions and corrections (articles)
Critiques or corrections to articles provide a mechanism for readers
to raise concerns or seek clarification about the content,
provide another interpretation of the original content,
and allow other topics to be addressed for your academic community.
Cientifica will receive and address, always, the comments
and will appropriately publish the responses, replies or retractions
of the case considering the definitions and processes set out in
the COPE's handling of post-publication critiques.
Response to complaints or punishment for non-compliance with the code (bad practices or misconduct)
In the case of those involved in the scientific communication process
(editors, reviewers, authors), when they are found committing inappropriate
conduct described in these statements, they will be removed from editorial
tasks and will not be allowed involvement with Cientifica for a period of
two years from the date of the resolution taken and notified to those involved.
In any case of recidivism, they will be permanently removed from
the tasks of our publication.
If inappropriate conduct is clearly observed in any of
the above topics by members of the professional or scientific
editorial team in Cientifica, the Editor-in-Chief will design
the corresponding punishment and communicate it to the parties involved.
Anti-plagiarism tool
Each article received, once it has met the editorial formatting standards,
is reviewed with the
Turnitin Similarity©
anti-plagiarism software.
To avoid plagiarism, it is expected that authors and other journals
take this part of the process seriously. It is expected that
within the original content and considering the textual quotes,
the percentage of similarity is less than 20%; In major cases,
it will be returned for its pertinent adaptation.
If you encounter the case of an article already published,
plagiarized or substantially derived from a previous work that
does not present a new contribution to its field, authors will not be
allowed involvement with Cientifica for a period of two years from
the date of the resolution taken and notified.
Generative AI and AI-assisted technologies
Our policy only refers to the writing process, and not to the use of AI
tools to analyze and draw insights from data as part of the research process.
Where authors use generative AI and AI-assisted technologies in the writing process,
these technologies should only be used to improve readability and language of the work.
Applying the technology should be done with human oversight and control and authors
should carefully review and edit the result, because AI can generate authoritative-sounding
output that can be incorrect, incomplete or biased. The authors are ultimately
responsible and accountable for the contents of the work.
Authors should disclose in their manuscript the use of AI and AI-assisted technologies
and a statement will appear in the published work. Declaring the use of these
technologies supports transparency and trust between authors, readers, reviewers,
editors or contributors and facilitates compliance with the terms of use of the
relevant tool or technology.
Authors should not list AI and AI-assisted technologies as an author
or co-author, nor cite AI as an author. Authorship implies responsibilities
and tasks that can only be attributed to and performed by humans.
Each author is accountable for ensuring that questions related to the
accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated
and resolved and authorship requires the ability to approve the final
ersion of the work and agree to its submission. Authors are also responsible
for ensuring that the work is original, that the stated authors qualify for
authorship, and the work does not infringe third party rights.
References
[1] COPE DOAJ OASPA WAME.
Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing — English.
https://doi.org/10.24318/cope.2019.1.12
[2] COPE Council.
COPE Supplemental guidance — Addressing concerns about systematic manipulation of the publication process — English
https://doi.org/10.24318/x0mN3xfd