Vivat Academia journal by this code of ethics declares its good intentions to commit both authors and reviewers, as well as internally, its editorial team and members of the Scientific Committee and the Good Conduct Committee to this code.

Therefore, this code has to be fully respected by all those involved in the publication of scientific papers in this journal.

 

Authors:

Because it is an open access publication, free in publication and reading, non-commercial, governed by the Creative Commons Attribution / Non Commercial 4.0 International, the author assigns the copyright and publication to the magazine through said system of public intellectual property ownership of free access, by signing the text of the letter of assignment of the rights of the author that is posted on the web of this publication, when sending an article is activated.

The author or authors agree not to misrepresent authorship, not accepting as authors persons who have not been actively involved in the generation of the article presented.

Declare the article’s title and summary to be governed by truthfulness and rigor, avoid citations ‘done as a favor,’ and declare the exact provenance of the work’s contents (doctoral thesis, research project, teaching experience...)

They undertake not to commit plagiarism, defined as the appropriation of texts by other authors without their consent and without citing the source, even if express permission has been granted by these third party authors. Likewise, they undertake not to include other texts already created by themselves in the postulated texts, avoiding that there is more than 20% coincidence between a previous text and the postulated one. There are computer programmes which, with a low error rate, weight the percentage of coincidences of compared texts and which are applied to the works submitted to this journal. This journal uses two of the following for each article: https://www.crossref.org; http://www.grammarly.com; http://www.copyscape.com/online-plagiarism; http://www.plagium.com; http://www.plagiarisma.net and whenever a level of coincidence greater than 25% is detected in any of them, the text will be passed through two others. If the level of coincidence persists, the journal's Good Conduct Committee will act to decide on the case.

The proposed article must be original and not be submitted simultaneously to another publication or have been published previously in any medium. Reformulations of previous research lines and updates of published past work in order to complete the investigation are acceptable. Also appropriate is previously unpublished work properly updated from presentations at scientific congresses or only available in conference proceedings, specifying the origin of the material to the evaluating Editorial Board of our journal.

As for the materials used in the article, the authors agree to request the necessary permissions for the reproduction of texts, illustrations, video, audio, and other documentary sources whose publication requires prior authorization in order not to violate the legal rights of the authors.

In the case of a research article derived from a very long investigation, and given the limitations inherent in a research paper, the results can be published in a series of articles as parts 1 , 2, and 3.

Following the recommendations of AOSIS on publication in scientific journals (Baiget and Torres -Salinas , 2013) which cites the work of Bebeau and Davis (1996 ), it is objectionable for authors to:

 

- Cite sources without being consulted

- Misinterpret previous works consulted

- Ignore data that contradicts or disagrees with the conclusions of the article

- Release scientific results prematurely, before peer review

- Keep research findings secret

- Hide data and methods which would permit the review of the experiments employed or the reworking of interpretive theories

- Not save for viewing the raw data of the field research

- Accredit false or non-contrasting authorities

Everything above stands as a binding commitment on the part of the editors and the authors, so that to submit a work for publication is to accept these terms. Your deliberate non-compliance means renouncing assessment of the submitted article and carries the penalty of not being able to publish in the journal within four calendar years of the date of the submission.

Editors:

On the part of the publisher, in this case Forum XXI and Historia de los sistemas informativos, ethical commitment lies in:

- Not publishing papers not approved by double blind peer reviewing, designated to that effect in order to maintain a quality criterion that is demanded in scientific journals of high scientific prestige. Thus the author will always know that the fact of publishing supposes a clear support for his research career.

- Avoiding promoting self-citations (quotes from articles in the journal) or manipulating directly or indirectly (through pressure on authors) to cite works of interest to the journal in order to improve their positioning in reference impact indexes.

- Maintaining free access to the network of published work, as well as informing the author of the status of the evaluation from the time the proposal is received until its rejection or final acceptance, with or without modifications.

Reviewers:

The evaluation system is based on arbitration of an article by two blind peer reviewers, understanding the word 'peer' in the sense of belonging to the same category, not being exact duplicates. In case of disagreement between these two initial reviewers, a third will be assigned. The reviewers agree not to try to figure out the identity of the author of the article so as not to allow this knowledge to influence their decision positively or negatively. If authorship is discovered accidentally, either by topic or by writing style, the reviewer shall avoid any prejudiced evaluation about this author. Knowing who submitted the article does not imply that the reader personally knows the author or has a positive or negative predisposition towards him or her. That is to say, conflicts of interest will be avoided.

Likewise, reviews will be made within a maximum period of 60 days after the reviewers accept the evaluation of the text. If there is an absolute discrepancy between the two reviewers, a third opinion will be requested and the option of 'publishable with improvements' will occur. The new period of reevaluation of these improvements will be 15 days from the submission by the author.

 

Committee on Good Conduct:

Consisting of members of the Scientific Committee and renewed every 4 calendar years (since 2011), it will ensure agreement between authors and reviewers if discrepancies arise, as commissioned by the Editor.

The authors can communicate by e-mail to the Editor’s address: editor@vivatacademia.net. They will be answered within the maximum period of 30 days from receipt of the mail.

When an irregularity is detected or doubts exist about a proposal, the committee will act ex officio. It will also intervene if it detects irregularities, in order to clarify the situation, applying an ethical code that corresponds to the following flow chart taken as international reference, among others existing, and created by the British organization COPE (Committee On Publication Ethics For ethics in publications), available on its website: www.publicationethics.org and directly accessible from: http://publicationethics.org/files/All_Flowcharts_English.pdf. Their decisions will be final.