This code is based on the Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing by the Committee on Publication Ethics COPE Committee on Publication Ethics: http://publicationethics.org/. It is directed at both those who edit, review, and authors.

1. Editors

– Publishing Decision: The Editorial Team will ensure the selection of the most qualified and scientifically specialized reviewers to provide a critical and expert appreciation of the work, with the least possible biases.

– Honesty: the editors evaluate the articles submitted for publication only on the basis of the scientific merit of the contents, in accordance with the editorial policy of the journal.

– Confidentiality: the editors and other members of the various councils and staff undertake not to disclose information relating to the articles submitted for publication to others who are not authors, reviewers, and editors. Anonymity is a formula used to preserve the intellectual integrity of the entire process.

– Conflict of Interest and Disclosure: the editors commit not to use in their research content from the articles submitted for publication without the written consent of the author.

– Timing of the Editorial Process: The editorial team commits to communicate in time the reception, evaluation, decision, and estimation, correction or rejection of the works received in a time that globally does not exceed 180 days.

2. Reviewers

– Contribution to the Editorial Decision: Those who take on the commitment to evaluate the works received must conduct a critical, constructive, and unbiased review, in order to ensure the scientific and literary quality in their area of knowledge.

– Time Management: The reviewers commit to evaluate the works in the shortest possible time to respect the delivery deadlines, given that at ECCSS the works must be evaluated in the shortest possible time in order to optimize editorial management. The reviewer who does not feel competent in the subject to review or who cannot finish the evaluation in the scheduled time will immediately notify the Editorial Team.

– Objectivity: The review will be as objective as possible, without mediating personal judgments about the authors. All assessments must be justified in a report. This report must be as exhaustive as possible so that the authors can clearly understand the modifications or corrections suggested, or, in case the work is rejected, understand the reasons for such decision. Likewise, in case there is any conflict of interest, the review of the work must be rejected.

– Confidentiality: The manuscripts are distributed anonymously. However, each assigned manuscript must be considered confidential. Therefore, these texts should not be discussed with other people without the express consent of the authors or editors.

– Text Display or Bibliographic References: The reviewers commit to accurately indicate the bibliographic references of possibly forgotten fundamental works by the author. The reviewer must also inform the editors of any similarity or overlap of the manuscript with other published works.

– Conflict of Interest and Disclosure: Confidential information or information obtained during the peer review process must be considered confidential and cannot be used for personal purposes. Reviewers only review a manuscript if there are no conflicts of interest.

3. Authors

– Originality and Plagiarism: All works submitted for publication must be unpublished, i.e., the authors of manuscripts submitted to the journal ensure that the work is original, that it does not contain parts from other authors or from other fragments of works already published by the authors. In addition, they confirm the veracity of the data and results presented in the work, that is, they are original and there is no plagiarism, nor distortion or manipulation of the empirical data when used or of the sources used to corroborate the hypotheses or conjectures.

– Exclusivity Commitment: The works submitted to ECCSS cannot have been simultaneously submitted to another journal for selection. Likewise, they cannot contain, even partially, results already published in other articles.

– List of Sources: The author must always provide the correct indication of the sources and contributions mentioned in the article.

– Authorship: In articles where more than one person has contributed, authorship should be ranked based on responsibility and involvement in their preparation. Likewise, the inclusion of all people who have made significant scientific and intellectual contributions in the development of the research and in the writing of the article must be guaranteed.

– Access and Retention: The editorial team may require the authors the data or sources on which the research is based, being able to retain them for a reasonable time after publication, with the possibility of making them accessible to the editor. In any case, for this purpose, all data must be meticulously anonymized.

Statement on Misconduct

In terms of best practices for strengthening ethics in scientific publication, the editorial process, after fulfilling the required formal aspects, guarantees that all authors review and verifiably accept responsibility for the content and record the contribution of each at the end of the manuscript. Verification can be by signature or digital confirmation, including if there is a conflict of interest, which must be explicit in the publication.

When there is a question regarding authorship, contact will first be made with the corresponding author and, if necessary, with the rest of the authors. In case of impasse, contact will be made with the affiliation institutions of the authors or funding involved in the development of the research.

As for the people involved in the research, the editorial process requires that the authors present backgrounds, such as the report of the corresponding ethics committee, authorization of the people involved, records of interviews, questionnaires, among others. When there is doubt or questioning, the Editorial Team will contact the corresponding author and, if necessary, all the authors requesting to complete the data.

To ensure the originality of the texts, the journal adopts duplication verification programs with texts already published. The journal informs the authors of the program in use in the process of sending the articles.

When there is doubt or questioning, the Editorial Team will contact the corresponding author and, if necessary, all the authors and if duplication is demonstrated, contact will be made with the affiliation institutions of the authors or funding involved in the development of the research.

When there is doubt in the inclusion of citations and their references, verification will be requested, or the cited document will be requested. When there is doubt or questioning, the Editorial Team must contact the corresponding author and, if necessary, all the authors.

When in the evaluation process, editors or reviewers identify an excess of self-citation of authors and/or the journal, the corresponding author will be contacted and, if necessary, all the authors for clarifications to support the decision-making.

Editors and reviewers must privilege impartiality, integrity, and confidentiality in their evaluation, prioritizing constructive criticisms and the agreed deadline with the journal. When there is doubt or questioning, the Editorial Team must contact the corresponding editor and/or the reviewers.

The fabrication or falsification of data and images are serious misconduct. The evaluation process is a criterion in identifying such misconduct. And if there are doubts, data corroborating the methodology and results will be requested from the authors. In the event of confirmation of misconduct, the affiliation institutions of the authors or funding involved in the development of the research will be informed.

The journal will inform in the instructions to the authors how communication of suspicions of misconduct is received.

In cases of doubts or questions considered above, the journal will follow the COPE flowcharts for identification and guidance on misconduct. Eventually, when there is a challenge to the journal's decision, a committee of members of the editorial body and external to the journal will be constituted.

On retractions and errata

The article already published in which misconduct was identified will remain indexed in the ECCSS database as retracted. The retraction will document the reason for the retraction duly referenced, by communication of the author or editor or another authorized agent, and published in the same journal. The retraction can be partial when the misconduct applies to a specific part of the article, without compromising the entirety of the published research. The article may not be "unpublished".

Cases of errors or failures, regardless of their nature or origin, that do not constitute misconduct, are corrected by means of errata.

The journal will publish errata, corrections, or retractions as quickly as possible.

For more details, please visit:

• Code of Conduct for Journal Editors
• Code of Conduct for Journal Publishers