Declaration of Publishing Ethics
The journal is regulated according to the rectory Resolution 22863, August 2006, by which the general policies and regulations for academic journals of the institution are defined.
The Editorial Board of the Journal is committed to the scientific community to ensure ethics throughout the editorial process and the quality of papers published according to the standards of indexing systems and summary for scientific journals, guaranteeing compliance with good editorial practices using as reference the Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors prepared by the Committee on Publication Ethics -COPE- (http://publicationethics.org/resources/guidelines).
1. Study design and ethical considerations
Good research must be well argumented, planned, properly designed, and ethically approved.
1.1 Research protocols should seek to answer specific questions, rather than just collect data.
1.2 Early agreement on the precise roles of the contributors and collaborators, and on matters of authorship and publication, is advised.
1.3 For all studies involving individuals under study or medical records or anonymous human tissues, it is necessary to have the formal and documented ethical approval of a duly constituted ethics committee for research.
1.4 The use of human biological samples under investigation must be conducted in compliance to the highest ethical standards, as recommended by the Nuffield Council on Bioethics.
1.5 Animal experiments should be fully in accordance with ethical principles and local and national provisions.
2. Data analysis
Data should be appropriately analysed, but inappropriate analysis does not necessarily amount to misconduct. Fabrication and falsification of data do constitute misconduct.
2.1 All sources and methods used to obtain and analyze data, including any electronic preprocessing, should be fully disclosed; detailed explanations should be provided for any exclusions.
2.2 Methods of analysis should be explained in detail and if they are not commonly used, references should be provided.
2.3 Any bias situation that has been considered should be reported in the discussion section of the paper, stating its impact on the desing and analysis stages.
3.1 The award of authorship should balance intellectual contributions to the conception, design, analysis and writing of the study against the collection of data and other routine work. If there is no task that can reasonably be attributed to a particular individual, then that individual should not be credited with authorship.
3.2 To avoid disputes over attribution of academic credit, it is helpful to decide early on in the planning of a research project who will be credited as authors, as contributors, and who will be acknowledged.
3.3 All authors must take public responsibility for the content of their paper. The multidisciplinary nature of much research can make this difficult, but this may be resolved by the disclosure of individual contributions.
3.4 Individuals who contributed to the work but whose contributions were not of sufficient magnitude to warrant authorship should avoid their name to be used in some work to give more credibility to their content.
4. Conflicts of Interest
Conflicts of interest comprise those which may not be fully apparent and which may influence the judgment of author, reviewers, and editors. They have been described as those which, when revealed later, would make a reasonable reader feel misled or deceived. They may be personal, commercial, political, academic or financial. “Financial” interests may include employment, research funding, stock or share ownership, payment for lectures or travel, consultancies and company support for staff.
4.1 Such interests, where relevant, must be declared to editors by researchers, authors, and reviewers.
4.2 Editors should also disclose relevant conflicts of interest to their readers. If in doubt, disclose.
4.3 Editors, editorial and scientific boards should notify the journal of any significant conflict of interest.
4.4 Sometimes conflicts of interest can become so strong that manuscripts cannot be published, or some people (for example evaluators or editors) are excluded from the decisions about the publication.
5. Double- Blind Peer review
Peer reviewers are external experts chosen by editors to provide written opinions, with the aim of improving the study. This journal uses double-blind review, which means that both reviewer and author identities are concealed from the reviewers, and vice versa, throughout the review process.
5.1 Authors must suggest two international reviewers and two national reviewers who cannot be part of the authors’ affiliation institutions, constantly updating the database of scholars with potential reviewers for future articles; there is no obligation on editors to use those suggested. Once the editorial board confirms that the manuscript meets the criteria established in the rules for the submission of papers and the quality to start the evaluation process, it will be sent to three peer reviewers according to their academic level, publications, investigative experience, among others. After the request for review is accepted, reviewers are requested to submit their concept within a period of no more than 30 days.
5.2 The duty of confidentiality in the assessment of a manuscript must be maintained by expert reviewers, and this extends to reviewers’ colleagues who may be asked (with the editor’s permission) to give opinions on specific sections.
5.3 The submitted manuscript should not be retained or copied.
5.4 Reviewers and editors should not make any use of the data, arguments, or interpretations, unless they have the authors’ permission.
5.5 Reviewers should provide speedy, accurate, courteous, unbiased and justifiable reports.
5.6 If reviewers suspect misconduct, they should write in confidence to the editor.
5.7 The evaluation of the paper will be based on the pertinence of the subject for its publication in the journal, relevance of the subject, thoroughness and soundness of ideas and concepts, as well as the overall organization, structure and wording of the paper and strength of the sources.
5.8 The evaluation must consider the contribution to the knowledge field, the innovations, the critical judgment developed, the appropriate form of citation, the bibliographic references used, its correct wording, among others. Recommendations will be indicated, if pertinent, for the modification and improvement of the text evaluated.
Plagiarism varies from the absence of references to the use of the ideas of others, published and unpublished, including the presentation of "new" authors of a complete document, sometimes in another language. It can occur at any stage of planning, research, writing or publication: it applies for printed and electronic versions.
All sources should be cited appropriately; if the authors have used the work and/or words, illustration of others, this must be appropriately cited or quoted.
Plagiarism ranges from the unreferenced use of others’ published and unpublished ideas, including research grant applications to submission under “new” authorship of a complete paper, sometimes in a different language. It may occur at any stage of planning, research, writing, or publication: it applies to print and electronic versions.
All sources should be disclosed, and if large amounts of other people’s written or illustrative material is to be used, permission must be sought.
By virtue of its commitment to the scientific and academic community, for the Revista Facultad de Ingeniería, any form of plagiarism is strictly prohibited and the texts that are identified will not be published; If published, the journal’s retraction notice will inform readers that the paper has been retracted in the electronic version.
In the event that Revista Facultad de Ingeniería publishes the article and discovers that it has been published in another journal, the editorial board shall request to the editorial board of the second journal retracting the publication, stating the reasons for such a decision.
In Revista Facultad de Ingeniería when a work is received by an author, the first step is to scan the manuscript using plagiarism detecting tools such as plagiarisma http://plagiarisma.net/es/, Plagscan http://www.plagscan.com/docman and soon crosscheck http://www.crossref.org/crosscheck/index.html. In case of finding documents describing essentially the same research or if it has been published in another journal or primary publication, the author will be notified and the publication will be rejected. When the similarity of the documents is not found, the evaluation process of the paper is developed and if it is approved for publication, taking into account that the evaluation process takes a few months, before the layout process can be carried out, the plagiarism tools previously mentioned will be used again.
7. Reduntant publicacion
Redundant publication occurs when two or more papers, without full cross reference, share the same hypothesis, data, discussion points, or conclusions.
7.1 Published studies do not need to be repeated unless further confirmation is required.
7.2 Previous publication of an abstract during the proceedings of meetings preclude subsequent submission for publication in the Revista Facultad de Ingeniería, unless substantially improved work with new results (50%), and deeper analysis with new contributions is submitted.
7.3 Re-publication of a paper previously published in another journal, in the same or in a different language than the journal is not acceptable in the Revista Facultad de Ingenieria.
7.4 At the time of submission, authors should disclose details of related papers, even if in a different language, and similar papers in press.
8. Dealing with misconduct
8.1.1. The general principle confirming misconduct is intention to cause others to regard as true that which is not true.
8.1.2. The examination of misconduct must therefore focus, not only on the particular act or omission, but also on the intention of the researcher, author, editor, reviewer or publisher involved.
8.1.3. Deception may be by intention, by reckless disregard of possible consequences, or by negligence. It is implicit, therefore, that “best practice” requires complete honesty, with full disclosure.
8.1.4. Codes of practice may raise awareness, but can never be exhaustive.
8.2 Investigating misconduct
8.2.1. Editors should not simply reject papers that raise questions of misconduct. They are ethically obliged to pursue the case. However, knowing how to investigate and respond to possible cases of misconduct is difficult.
8.2.3 It is the editors who make the final decision; they can be based on the consultations to the legal office of the University.
8.3 Serious misconduct
8.3.1 Editors must take all allegations and suspicions of misconduct seriously, but they must recognize that they do not usually have either the legal legitimacy or the means to conduct investigations into serious cases.
8.3.2. The editor must decide when to alert the employers of the accused author(s).
8.3.3. If editors are presented with convincing evidence—perhaps by reviewers—of serious misconduct, they should immediately pass this on to the employers, notifying the author(s) that they are doing so.
8.3.4. If accusations of serious misconduct are not accompanied by convincing evidence, then editors should confidentially seek expert advice or legal support.
8.3.5. If the experts raise serious questions about the research, then editors should notify the employers.
8.3.6. If the experts find no evidence of misconduct, the editorial processes should proceed in the normal way.
8.3.7Authors should be given the opportunity to respond to accusations of serious misconduct.
8.4 Less serious misconduct
8.4.1 Editors may judge that it is not necessary to involve employers in less serious cases of misconduct, such as redundant publication, deception over authorship, or failure to declare conflict of interest. Sometimes the evidence may speak for itself, although it may be wise to appoint an independent expert.
8.4.2. Editors should remember that accusations of even minor misconduct may have serious implications for the author(s), and it may then be necessary to ask the employers to investigate.
8.4.3. Authors should be given the opportunity to respond to any charge of minor misconduct.
8.4.4. If convinced of wrongdoing, editors may wish to adopt some of the sanctions.
Sanctions may be applied separately or combined. The following are ranked in approximate order of severity.
8.5.1. A letter of explanation to the authors, where there appears to be a genuine misunderstanding of principles.
8.5.2. A letter of reprimand and warning as to future conduct.
8.5.3 An editorial giving full details of the misconduct.
8.5.4 Refusal to accept future submissions from the individual, unit, or institution responsible for the misconduct, for a stated period.
8.5.5 Formal withdrawal or retraction of the paper from the OJS, informing other editors and the indexing authorities. The retraction may be initiated by Revista Facultad de Ingeniería in the following cases: intentional errors, previous publication, plagiarism or unethical conduct, and the cases contemplated by the COPE’s retraction guide. Retraction is a mechanism that seeks to correct information and publish and alert readers about unreliable, incorrect or incomplete information that may affect partially or completely the nature of a paper.
The Revista Facultad de Ingeniería -redin-, through Open Journal System (OJS) as its online plataform https://revistas.udea.edu.co/index.php/ingenieria/login/lostPassword and its e-mail email@example.com. Guarantees the confidentiality of the evaluation process at all times: the anonymity of the reviewers and authors; the reviewed content; the reasoned report issued by the reviewers and any other communication issued by the editorial, and scientific boards as required.
The team responsible for the journal, in all cases, will give immediate and sufficient attention to the clarifications, complaints or appeals hat an author wishes to refer to the editors or the editorial board or the reviewers of the paper.
Although the editorial board approves papers based on criteria of quality, investigative rigor, relevance and taking into account the peer evaluation, authors are responsible for the ideas expressed in their own texts (Resolution 21231-2005, article 6), as well as the investigative processes underlying them. Finally, regarding the evaluation of papers, the journal will avoid conflicts of interest, defined as the activities that may distort the judgment or modify the selection criteria of the papers by any participant in the process . In any case, those responsible for the journal require that participants in the process of evaluation and publication of papers make such conflicts explicit. When relevant to readers, the latter information will be made public.In Revista Facultad de Ingeniería –redin-, for the evaluation process, the articles are only received through the OJS platform using the website: https://revistas.udea.edu.co/index.php/ingenieria/index
1. Information request and initial modifications (one week, journal’s reponse time; one week, author`s response time)
The first step is to scan the manuscript using plagiarism detecting tools such as plagiarisma http://plagiarisma.net/es/, Plagscan http://www.plagscan.com/docman and soon crosscheck http://www.crossref.org/crosscheck/index.html.
If under this review process, it can be considered not previously published, the verification of the following information is initially done:
Date of submission of the paper: supplied by OJS Paper title Revision letter of presentation and assignment of copyright, which is correctly and completely completed In the content of the paper the following aspects are verified: Title in Spanish and English Resumen and Abstract Palabras clave and Keywords Complete information of the authors (Institutional affiliation, research group, postal address, city, country)Review of references. (IEEE citation style and ascending order)
The author should Avoid placing figures before their first mention in the text
The paper may have a maximum of 20% self-citations
The figures must comply with the requirements of the guide for authors. The number of pages of the paper is verified according to the instructions for authors, depending on whether it is a review or a research paper.
After this first review, if the manuscript does not fulfill all the requirements, authors are notified through OJS and requested the necessary adjustments to continue the process. Then, it is decided which papers will begin the arbitration process. It is the responsibility of the corresponding author to ensure that all sections of this document and the final accepted version of the manuscript have been read and approved by each of the contributing authors.
The date of receipt is defined once the author has made the previous revisions, not at the moment of entering the OJS.
2. Thematic Editor Selection (3 days)
The thematic editor of the journal, in charge of the evaluation process of the paper, determine whether the paper is suitable for publication and the quality of English is enough to send it to arbitration process. In case of finding that the paper does not meet the minimum quality requirements, the work is rejected and the correspondence author is notified.
3. Evaluators Selection (Evaluators are assigned from the article submission until the end of the evaluation )
When the paper meets these requirements, it will be sent out for three single-blind peer-reviews (within a period of one month) through the OJS of the journal until receiving at least two evaluations of the work. Peer reviewers are external experts chosen by editors to provide written opinions, with the aim of improving the study. This journal uses double-blind review, which means that both reviewer and author identities are concealed from the reviewers, and vice versa, throughout the review process. The would-be peers are selected from researchers' databases to which the Universidad de Antioquia's School of Engineering Journal has access. The peers will be active researchers in the areas of interest having a recognized trajectory in areas related to the topic of the article. These conditions are verified through their curriculum vitae and by reviewing their publications over the last two years. For the reviewing process, the journal has two formats, one for review papers and the other for research papers or case reports.
4. Evaluators’ corrections to the autor (1 month)
In addition, reviewers can send additional files if they deem it necessary, and can also record their findings or observations in the body of the article, and send these files to the journal through the OJS. The evaluations are sent by the journal to the correspondence author through the OJS and are given a deadline to respond to them and send the latest version of the paper.
Once the new version of the paper has been received with the changes and the responses to the evaluations, the Editorial Board will review this material, if there are major revisions, the authors' replies and the latest version will be sent back to the reviewers. In case the evaluations have suggested minor revisions, the Editorial Board accepts or declines the submission. The editor in charge of the evaluation of the paper shall notify the author (s) the decisions about the paper.
5. English proofreading (1 week english editor and once the author has completed the English language review )
When the paper successfully exceeds the scientific quality assessment, the manuscripst are submitted to the plagiarism detection programs listed above. If it has been previously published, it is rejected, otherwise the manuscript undergoes English proofreading. This procces is done through e-mails between the journal and the correspondence author until the author adjusts the paper to the quality demanded by the journal. Once you have the approval of the quality of English by the correspondent editor, the editorial style process begins.
The approval and the online publication dates are defined once the author has completed the English language review.
6. Review of editorial style (1 week)
During this stage messages are exchanged by OJS platform between the author and the staff in charge of this work in the journal, the author is asked for answers at times defined by the journal taking into account the observations made. The journal reserves the right to edit the manuscript if deemed necessary before the document is published (spelling, diagramming, citation, among others). Once the paper meets the requirements, the manuscript undergoes layout process before publication. At this stage, it is defined the issue in which the paper will be published.
7. Layout and publication processes (2 days and 1 week)
Using Latex software, the paper is given the format. After the first layout, the journal verifies the content has not been altered and it is subsequently sent to the correspondence author, requesting a review; If necessary, some adjustments are indicated to satify both the author and the journal. Through OJS the number of the journal to be published is created and the paper is included.
Every article accepted for publication in the journal is assigned a DOI number before being pusblished online
All articles submitted to the journal for publication undergone a follow-up system, which aims to keep control of the submission evolution until the final decision of their publication.
Once an article is received, no later than 15 days, the section Editor verifies that the content is related to the topics and purposes of the Journal, and that the article has been written according to the publishing instructions sent to the authors.
Upon recommendation of the Editorial Committee, the section Editor will send the article to at least three peers for revision. The would-be peers are selected from researchers' databases to which the Universidad de Antioquia's School of Engineering Journal has access. The peers will be active researchers in the areas of interest having a recognized trajectory in areas related to the topic of the article. These conditions are verified through their curriculum vitae and by reviewing their publications over the last two years.
Both peers and authors cannot belong to the same institution. Peers-to-be will be consulted about their availability to assess the article, and in the case they accept the revision, they will be provided access to the article and to the assessment guide in order to record their comments and recommendations about the acceptance or rejection of the text. It is expected that the peers who accept the assessment of the articles commit to carry out the assessment of the article within a month after receiving the document.
After the articles are evaluated for at least two peers, the editor of the Journal will send the evaluated articles to consideration of the Editorial Committee. When assessments are not sufficiently supported, or if there are discrepancies among concepts or arguments which are not clear for the committee, the concept of additional peers can be requested.
The Committee will make a decision regarding the publication of the article according to the assessments, bearing in mind the answers of the authors for the questions made by the peers and the editor, and supported by the criteria of their members based on the editorial policies. The decision can be one of the following: acceptance or rejection of the article.
The articles accepted by the Committee will be placed in a waiting list for their publication, taking into account the order of submission and approval. No more than one article per author will be published in each Journal issue. The Journal will not publish articles of the same main author in consecutive issues. No more than three articles of authors that belong to the editing institution will be published per issue.
Submitted manuscripts will be handled in a confidential manner; this applies to reviewers and also to peer reviewers who may be asked to give their opinion on specific sections. The submitted manuscript should not be retained or copied
Reviewers and editors should not make any use of the data, arguments, or interpretations, unless they have the authors' permission.
Reviewers should provide speedy, accurate, courteous, unbiased, and justifiable reports.
If reviewers suspect misconduct, they should write in confidence to the editor
- Conflicts of interest
Reviewers should notify the editor if there is any potential conflict of interest with the manuscript. The conflict of interest can be:
Academic conflict of interest: past or present association as thesis advisor, or thesis student; collaboration on a project or on a book, article, report, paper, or conference proceedings within the last 48 months; Co-edition of a journal, conference proceedings within the last 24 months.
Personal conflicts of interest: family relationship as spouse, child, sibling, or parent or any other that might affect the judgement.
Financial conflict of interest: Dependance on one of the authors of the paper for a scholarship, financial support for an internship, resources for a research project and any other situation that may affect the evaluation process, must be declared.
Work related conflict of interest: Interests in a new job in which one of the authors could be the boss, one of the authors was the boss in the last 48 months, some of their close family has a job in which one of the authors is a superior.
Paper-content conflict of interest: Previously known the results presented in the article, participates in the research project from which the paper is derived, or any other situation on the content of the paper that may bias its judgment.
Since Redin uses the double-blind review process, the potential for conflict of interest is considerably reduced.
Functions of the director/editor of the Revista Facultad de Ingeniería
Adopting the Resolution 22863, article 9, the duties of the Directors/Editors of the journals of the University of Antioquia are: A) to ensure compliance with all editorial and administrative policies drawn up by the editorial board and the respective academic unit; B) to assume the representation of the academic journal in the aspects established by law and by the regulations of the University; C) to maintain contact with the different academic and administrative instances that are related to the journal; D) to chair and convene the editorial board; E) to supervise the editing, production, marketing and exchange of the journal; F) to supervise the budget; G) others that are set by regulation, or by the Editorial Board. In addition to the above functions, given that editors are the ones who run the journal, they take into consideration and weigh the interests of many actors, including readers, authors, evaluators and indexing systems. Also they are functions of the editors of the Revista Facultad de Ingeniería of the contemplations by the COPE, listed below:
- Editors’ decisions to accept or reject a paper for publication should be based only on the paper’s importance, originality, and clarity, and the study’s relevance in the field.
- Studies that challenge previous work published in the journal should be given an especially sympathetic hearing.
- Studies reporting negative results should not be excluded.
- All original studies should be peer reviewed before publication, taking into full account possible bias due to related or conflicting interests.
- Editors must treat all submitted papers as confidential.
When a published paper is subsequently found to contain major flaws, editors must accept responsibility for correcting the record prominently and promptly.
Where misconduct is suspected, the editor must write to the authors first before contacting the head of the institution concerned, in case of considering it necessary.
Once published each issue of the Revista Facultad de Ingeniería, the Director/ Editor is responsible for the dissemination and distribution to collaborators, evaluators, and to the entities with which exchange agreements have been established, as well as to national and international repositories and indexation systems, and for mailings to active subscribers.
Editorial Board Functions
The members of the Editorial Board are the supervisors of the editorial quality characterizing publications in the field of science and technology, according to the criteria established by Publindex (Colciencias, 2010, pp. 5-12) and with those Contemplated by SciELO Colombia (sf). It also includes the criteria developed by Latindex (s.f. a). The functions of the Editorial Board include the periodic evaluation of the processes applied to the reception, evaluation and acceptance of papers. According to the Rectoral Resolution 22863 of August 9, 2006, article 11, the Board has the competence to propose or amend the internal regulations of the journal. The Editorial Board makes the final decision to accept or reject the manuscript for publication,and the edition in which it will be published.
Scientific Board Functions
The members of the Scientific Board are the supervisors of the scientific quality of the journal. The Scientific Board is essentially a consultative body composed of experts from national and international academic communites who are internationally recognized in their respective fields of specialization. (Rectoral Resolution 22863 of August 9, 2006). This board is responsible for verifying that the publication complies with the criteria of the international scientific community (Colciencias, 2010, p. 5-6, SciELO Colombia, s.f.); And periodically evaluate the relevance of publications and certification and indexing processes.