Ethical guidelines
The journal Lingüística y Literatura adheres to the ethical guidelines contained in the publication of the Committee on Ethics in Publication - COPE, which are included in the COPE website and in manuals such as Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers; COPE, A Brief Ethical Editing Guide for New Editors; COPE guidelines on good publishing practices, and other flowcharts and brochures produced by them. We invite authors, evaluators and editors to read them carefully and to ensure that they meet the criteria that correspond to them. To learn more about the process of our editorial decissions, please click here and here.
Ethical standards for authors
Before submission
• Regarding the manuscript: Authors must submit original and pertinent works for the subject of the journal, as well as inform the editorial team if there are similar versions of the manuscript that have appeared or are in the process of publication elsewhere. Similarly, authors should ensure that the documents submitted are not redundant, double, multiple or inflated; or simultaneous or fragmented publications, known as salami or publications (see Elsevier and Hernández). The journal suggests sending a declaration of informed consent when using the sampling method or using data obtained from a specific population.
• Regarding authorship: It is necessary to include only the actual authors of the study (those who made significant intellectual contributions) and agree on the order of authorship before making the submission, taking into account that the first author is the one who made the most significant contribution to the manuscript. It is vital to refrain from including authors of the "fictitious", "gift" or "guest" type (see International Committee of Medical Journal Editors).
• Regarding plagiarism and self-plagiarism: Any external contribution should be cited appropriately to avoid incurring plagiarism. Likewise, self-citations should not exceed 10% of the total citations of the manuscript. It is important to note that, when submitting to the journal, the document can be examined for plagiarism and self-plagiarism using a similarity check system called Crosscheck, which indicates the degree of coincidence with other works already published in several languages.
• Regarding the ethics of the study: Authors should ensure that the identity of the participants in the study is not disclosed, as well as avoid incurring defamation, conflict of interest or fraud, which includes the manufacture, falsification or incorrect manipulation of data (see Springer).
During the arbitration and editing process: Authors should refrain from submitting other manuscripts to the journal until an editorial decision has been made regarding the first submission. Likewise, they must maintain respectful, clear and professional communication with the editorial team.
Ethical Standards for Evaluators
Before the evaluation: Generally speaking, it is the duty of evaluators to conduct arbitration in a respectful, confidential, effective and objective manner, expressing their views clearly with supporting arguments and references as necessary. The evaluator should avoid deliberately favoring or opposing the publication of a manuscript based on whether or not it confirms his beliefs or his own publications, as well as refrain from accepting the invitation if he believes that the topic does not fit his line of research. In essence, you need to make sure that the report is the type you would like to receive as an author or as an editor.
During the evaluation: The evaluator must provide prompt, accurate, courteous, unbiased, and justifiable reports, as well as effectively notify the editorial team of personal requests or inconsistencies with the manuscript. Such notifications may respond to:
• Concern about conflict of interest between evaluator and author or evaluator and manuscript.
• Suspicions of misconduct, which should be reported confidentially to the editor.
• Request for evaluation of a similar manuscript by another publication, which must be communicated immediately.
• Request for extension, if you can not meet the proposed dates for sending the valuation. • Request permission to send the manuscript to another colleague.
• Request for permission to conduct the evaluation in a non-anonymous manner (for example, due to comments made to the authors or a close personal relationship between the parties).
After the evaluation: Regarding confidentiality and fair use: The evaluator should commit to maintain confidentiality in the evaluation of the document, avoid preserving or copying the content of the document and refrain from making use of the data, arguments or interpretations for purposes other than those of the evaluation.
Ethical Standards for Publishers
Before the evaluation: Accept or reject works based exclusively on their quality, relevance, originality, research rigor and unpublished character. Give timely notice to authors about editorial decisions with arguments that support them. Ensure that manuscripts are evaluated solely for their intellectual content, without interposing particular interests or exercising any type of discrimination on racial, religious, political, sex, age, physical or mental condition, etc. Ensure the protection of the identities of authors and peer reviewers, so that the conditions for double-blind evaluation are met.
During the evaluation: Be sure to thoroughly read all submitted manuscripts and consider compliance with author standards before they are peer-reviewed. Anticipate all possible biases they may have, due to interests related to or in conflict with the study. Contact authors or evaluators to request an explanation when there are suspected cases of misconduct, all before making an editorial decision.
After the evaluation: Verify that the authors comply with the legal requirements demanded by the journal before proceeding to the edition and publication of the approved texts. Check that the authors have made the changes suggested by the evaluators and the editorial committee before the edition and publication of the approved texts.
In the editorial and publication process: Notify the authors in a timely manner about the publication of the text or about any novelty that may be presented during the editing and publication process. Accept responsibility when it is subsequently found that a published article contains important flaws and correct them promptly and notoriously. Maintain ethical oversight of published research. Be able to publish errata when necessary. Facilitate free access to the contents published through the journal's website and indexers.
Retractions, Corrections and Expressions of Concern
Retractions: The publication of texts will be considered under the following circumstances: lack of reliability in the findings, plagiarism, publication of texts already published in another journal(s), publication of unauthorized information, copyright infringement or incurrence in legal problems, research manipulated in the evaluation process, unethical research or that has not reported conflicts of interest. According to COPE, when making retractions, it must clearly appear as a section in all the sites where the article is published by the journal, with the respective data that identify it (title, authors, date of acceptance and publication, DOI). In addition, the person and the reasons why he does it should be indicated, with moderate language. To publish these types of notices, it is suggested to proceed promptly.
Corrections: According to Wiley's Best Practice Guidelines on Publishing Ethics Manual, corrections are published when readers, or authors, report that there is a major error in the publication, especially if it is an error that may affect the interpretation of the data or information presented in an article. However, the error cannot be so fundamental that it invalidates the work, because in this case it is necessary to resort to retraction. When published, they should be fully distinguished from retractions and expressions of concern about bad practices. In addition, they must be included in the indexing systems, be linked to the article, and be able to be consulted at no cost, such as retractions. According to Publishing Ethics: Academic Research - Cambridge University Press corrections are only issued if it is the author who made the mistake, because if it is the journal, a faith of errata will be issued. If this is a minor error, such as those that would likely occur during typewriting or proofreading, journals can make the changes without notification (Publishing Ethics: Academic Research - Cambridge University Press).
Expressions of Concern: Expressions of concern are published when the publisher has well-founded concerns or suspicions and feel that readers should be aware of potential miscegenation in the information (Best Practice Guidelines on Publishing Ethics - Wiley). According to COPE, editors should consider publishing an expression of concern when there are suspicions of misconduct by authors, institutional negligence to investigate cases of publication of unreliable findings or, if any research is carried out in this regard, there is delay in such a process. As in the case of retractions and corrections, COPE suggests that expressions of concern be linked to the article and that the reasons for the concern be exposed. If in the future, more evidence is found for the case, the expression of concern could be replaced by a notice of retraction or an exonerating statement, as the case may be (COPE Forum 26 February 2018: Expressions of Concern).
