Code of ethics

To guarantee a harmonious relationship between the parties involved, and the quality of the contents, Prometeo urges authors, reviewers, as well as members of the Editorial Committee and the International Council, to preserve the highest standards of intellectual and scientific integrity.

Our Ethics politics, and is based on the Committee on Publication Ethics (Code of Conduct and Best Practices Guidelines for Journals Editors, COPE https://publicationethics.org)

Duties of the Director:

  • Consult the Editorial Committee to resolve problems related to the journal's editorial policy.
  • Summon the Editorial Committee to regular meetings with a minimum frequency of once a month.
  • Grant official proof to the reviewers for each opinion issued.
  • Take care of the validity of the journal's legal records.
  • Guarantee that the publication process complies with copyright regulations.
  • Manage material and human resources with the corresponding institutions for the proper functioning of the magazine.

 

Duties of the Editorial Committee:

  • Select and assign the reviewers of the papers received by the journal, based on their experience as researchers on the corresponding topic.
  • Communicate to the authors the results of the evaluation process to which the work received by the journal has been subjected.
  • Keep the identity of reviewers confidential.
  • Reject those collaboration proposals that are published in other printed or electronic journals, as well as those that constitute total or partial plagiarism.
  • Carry out a basic assessment of the works received before they are sent for external assessment and notify the authors of this decision.
  • Resolve conflicts that may arise in the evaluation and editing process, based on the recommendations of the Committee on Publications Ethics (COPE).
  • Propose initiatives that lead to an improvement of the journal in its different aspects: quality, visibility, presentation.
  • Assist in the editing process.

 

Duties of the reviewer:

  • Declare and explain, if any, a conflict of interest to make your opinion.
  • Treat under terms of confidentiality the text which review has been assigned.
  • Keep your participation as a reviewer secret even after the work has been published.
  • Do not transfer your reviewer role to other researchers.
  • Return your verdict according to the assigned text's merits and weaknesses, relying on the opinion format that is available to you.
  • Send the results of your evaluation within the period established by the journal.
  • Do not quote or copy the text that has been entrusted to you.

 

Duties of the authors:

  • Submit unpublished collaboration proposals, which are not found in other editorial processes.
  • Follow the Rules for publication.
  • Correct, expand or improve your texts, once they have been accepted for publication, taking into account the comments of the reviewers.
  • Send corrections to your texts within the period requested by the journal.
  • The author must acknowledge the entity funding the research
  • Authors must declare their contribution to authorship in accordance with the internationally established taxonomy for assigning credits to authors of scientific articles (https://credit.niso.org/).

 

The following behaviors are considered unacceptable:

  • Plagiarism: partial or total reproduction of work not belonging to the researcher who proposes it, whether it has been published or not, without author credit. Any text that incurs plagiarism will be rejected.
  • Simultaneous application of the same article for different publications: the identification of this will result in the disqualification of the article as a candidate for publication or in the automatic cancellation of the opinion process, as the case may be.
  • Corruption or manipulation of the opinion processes: If a conflict of interest is detected in an opinion, the result will be annulled and the reviewer involved will be dismissed. After this, it will be assigned to another reviewer.
  • Indication or suggestion in the opinion, by the reviewer, that own publications be taken into account to enrich or improve some aspect of the reviewed work.