Best practices guidelines and editorial ethics
In addition to our guidelines, Utopía y praxis latinoamericana adheres to the “COPE Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors” and is guided by the “Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement (PEMS)” [clicking will start a direct download to your computer] taken from Scopus.
It guarantees that each publication will offer scientific quality and maintain the declared frequency. It will be impartial and evaluate all papers presented in peer review in a double-blind peer review system. From its report , the works will be accepted or rejected. It will ensure the quality of published material even after its publication date if an unethical practice such as plagiarism, misrepresentation of sources or invention of data were detected. It will also ensure that the publications of each volume do not reiterate the same authorship.
They must guarantee that their articles are original, unpublished and that they have not been presented to other publications simultaneously, which will be guaranteed through the declarations of originality and the transfer of rights that they will attach with their proposals. They cannot exaggerate the importance and application of the results of their research, so they will have to be critical and specific in the same. They must cite all the works they have used in the body of the article, because otherwise it could even be considered as plagiarism. Only the material that has been explicitly cited within the body of the article may appear in the reference table.
If their research has received any type of subsidy, it must be declared in order to avoid conflicts of interest, the failure to include them in such cases may be grounds for elimination of the article even after its publication. Also, they must specify if their research has had more participants in its preparation.
They will be receptive to criticism and suggestions and will deliver the requested corrections in the established times. They will also have the possibility to communicate to the editorial team any errors they may find in their own proposals during the evaluation period.
They will carry out the work requested in the time available for such work. Their review will judge originality, scientific input, management of sources, correct use of concepts and theories. They will report unethical practices such as plagiarism, conflicts of interest or multiple publication attempts. They will use a respectful language to communicate their observations and keep all the information worked in complete confidentiality.
They will maintain a critical position towards their own work, disabling themselves in cases in which they are considered to have insufficient experience or knowledge to proceed, and will decline any participation when this could generate conflicts of interest.
It is assumed that the referee is "a pair" of the evaluated. This means that both develop in the context of a scientific culture that is familiar to them, that is to say, both are presumed to "dominate the subject", who know their trends and counter trends. This is of undeniable value when an arbitration responds according to the objectives on which it is based: sufficient neutrality and minimum subjectivity, as to make a conscientious judgment. The success of this "mission" will depend on this, which will undoubtedly benefit the publication.
In order to achieve the greatest possible objectivity in your evaluation, The specialists in charge of the evaluation should take with special consideration the following aspects that are stated (without impairing your freedom to evaluate ). It is about confirming the quality of the paper under consideration.
1. The theoretical level of scientific research
The conceptual and argumentative domain of the scientific research proposal will be considered. Especially, make evident in the paper presented pertinent theoretical contexts that allow locating the issue and its problems. This cancels the degree of speculation that the object of study may suffer.
2. The methodological level of scientific research
The methodological coherence of the work between the proposed problem and the logical structure of the research will be considered. Only a good methodological support can determine if there is sufficient coherence around the hypotheses, the objectives and the categories used. This nullifies any feature of asystematicity of the research.
3. Level of interpretation of scientific research
The interpretive degree of the research will be considered, especially in those of a social or humanistic nature. This cancels any discourse or descriptive analysis in the research and allows to show if the work presents a good reflective and critical level. In addition, scientific research should generate new postulates, proposals.
4. The bibliographic level of scientific research
Appropriate use of the bibliography will be considered. Which means that it must be as specialized as possible and current. References and/or citations must fit and respond to the argumentative structure of the research, without falling into contradictions or without meaning. This is one of the levels to prove the rigor of scientific research. The bibliographic source should not be underestimated.
5. The level of grammar
The appropriate use of language and clarity of expression will be considered, insofar as this is directly related to the communicative level that is due to the research. Syntactic inaccuracies, superfluous rhetoric, punctuation errors, cumbersome paragraphs, among other aspects, are elements that confuse the reader and can be synonymous with serious mistakes in written communication.
6. The level of objections and observations
The arguments that the referee has to partially or totally correct an article must be reasoned in writing, in order to proceed to its publication. This is very important, otherwise the author of the article cannot carry out the corrections requested by the referee. Your disagreements, if they are not within the bounds of scientific research, should not dominate the evaluation. If for any reason the referee considers that he is not in a position to give an impartial and objective opinion, he must communicate his resignation to proceed with his replacement.
7. The prompt response of the referee
It is convenient that the referee respects and duly complies, avoiding unnecessary delays, with the dates set for the evaluation. The opposite creates serious, and sometimes serious, problems in the journal's schedule. If the referee cannot meet the time limits determined for the evaluation, he must notify it immediately.
8. The correct submission of paper
The formality of the work will be considered according to the Publication Rules of the magazine that appear at the end of it (you can see them in the following LINK).