ISSN 0718-5049

Una Mirada Histórica desde América Latina - Peer Review Journal of Historiography / Scientific Journal
NORMAS ÉTICAS Y DE BUENAS PRÁCTICAS DE EDICIÓN (Español)
Asumiendo la necesidad de explicitar los criterios y procedimientos que deben resguardar las relaciones entre este medio y sus autores, así como de objetivar los derechos y responsabilidades que a cada uno compete en el proceso de participación en el espacio público comunicacional, Revista Izquierdas da cuenta y promueve un adecuado marco de prácticas difusionales que a continuación detallamos. Estas se basan en las orientaciones que a este respecto propone el Committee on Publication Ethics, COPE, en su Code of Conduct and best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors (http://publicationethics.org/)
Deberes y responsabilidades generales de los Editores de Izquierdas
Procurar que satisfacer las necesidades de sus lectores y autores;
Mejorar constantemente la revista;
Asegurar la calidad del material que se publica;
Defender la libertad de expresión;
Resguardar la integridad y reserva de los antecedentes académicos;
Impedir que las necesidades comerciales comprometan los estándares intelectuales y de edición;
Estar dispuestos siempre a publicar correcciones, clarificaciones, retracciones y disculpas cuando sea necesario.
1.1 Específicas respecto a los lectores
Sea por medio de mención directa o a través requerimiento particulares, los editores darán siempre toda la información relativa a origen de la publicación, fuentes de financiamiento; rol de eventuales financistas o patrocinadores; origen y/o patrocinios financieros de los artículos publicados.
Así mismo, dispondrá públicamente de la información sobre política editorial, criterios de edición, trabajos de indexación.
Relación con los autores
Los editores darán todos los pasos necesarios para asegurar la calidad del material que publican, especificando, si es del caso, finalidades y estándares de exigencias de las distintas secciones en que el contenido se organice.
Las decisiones del/los Editor/es, concernientes a la aceptación o el rechazo de un manuscrito para publicación, estarán basadas exclusivamente en la importancia, originalidad y claridad del manuscrito, y en la relevancia del estudio para con los contenidos declarados de la revista.
A través de la publicación en la revista de las exigencias de preparación de manuscritos u originales, el Editor informará al autor sobre estos requisitos.
Por medio de la respectiva publicación en el home de la revista, el Editor dará a conocer a los autores la modalidad de evaluación de originales, pautas de revisión, plazos de respuestas, mecanismos de apelación, tratamiento de los derechos de autor, resolución de conflictos de intereses.
Todo cambio en personas y criterios de la dirección editorial de la revista no podrá afectar a los autores (y sus trabajos) aceptados para publicación en fecha anterior a los cambios
Relaciones con los evaluadores
La dirección de la revista Izquierdas publicará las guías o pautas de evaluación de originales por medio de las cuales los autores sabrán a qué atenderán los evaluadores de sus trabajos.
Izquierdas tomará las medidas para asegurar y resguardar la privacidad de las identidades de los pares evaluadores. Cualquier cambio sobre esto será oportunamente informado a los autores.
Los Editores de Izquierdas dispondrán de un mecanismo informado sobre recepción y tratamiento de quejas y reclamos; sus instancias de respuesta y apelación en distintos niveles, hasta un eventual veredicto final inapelable por parte de los editores y los autores materializado en la designación de un árbitro imparcial nombrado caso a caso por las partes involucradas.
Promoción del debate
Los editores de Izquierdas publicarán todas las críticas u oposiciones fundamentadas que se recepcionen a propósito de la publicación de un artículo u opinión. Sólo la presencia de malos términos u ofensas impedirán esta reproducción. Los autores de los materiales criticados tendrán, a su vez, oportunidad de responder sujetándose a las normas de respeto y cordialidad comunicacional.
Promoción de la integridad ético-académica
Los Editores asegurarán que los contenidos a publicarse se ajusten a criterios éticos internacionalmente aceptados. En caso necesario, solicitarán a los autores las probanzas éticas pertinentes (Comités de ética, Consejos de revisión, etc). La obtención de estos resguardos no implicará, de todos modos, que los materiales propuestos por los autores dispongan per se de garantía ética. El Consejo Editorial de la revista se reserva el derecho a la sanción final.
Los Editores promoverán el resguardo ético tanto en trabajos publicados como no publicados. Para ello, se priorizará por abordar los reparos con los autores o los directamente concernidos. En caso necesario, por la magnitud o implicancias de las faltas éticas, podrán llevar el o los casos a otras personas e instituciones.
De advertirse que han sido publicadas en la revista imprecisiones significativas, menciones equívocas o engañosas, informaciones distorsionadas, Izquierdas recurrirá a los autores para su corrección inmediata en la versión en línea de la revista. Tal proceder deberá quedar claramente explicado en la misma publicación. En caso que por cualquier motivo no se consiga la corrección dicha, los editores se reservan el derecho a dar de baja los contenidos en discusión
Consideraciones comerciales
Revista Izquierdas es de acceso abierto y gratuito, y queda estrictamente prohibida su utilización bajo términos comerciales por parte de terceros.
Conflicto de intereses
Izquierdas dispone de mecanismos y formulas para atender y resolver en diversos conflictos de intereses que se presenten entre sus gestores; entre estos y los autores; entre los autores y los evaluadores; entre sus contenidos y sus lectores.
En los conflictos al interior de su Consejo de edición, las reuniones de este equipo, las consultas bilaterales entre sus miembros, y la determinación final por parte de la Dirección de la publicación, son los mecanismos de tratamiento y despeje de las inconveniencias y problemas
Respecto de la revista y su entorno editorial (autores, evaluadores, lectores), se contempla la recepción de quejas, reclamos, apelaciones, rebates y respuestas transmitidas al Editor, quien determinará los pasos a seguir y las personas e instancias a recurrir.
En caso que las quejas se dirijan en contra del Editor, la comunicación deberá, en primera instancia, dirigirse a este. Si la queja no fuera atendida o no resuelta satisfactoriamente, el o la reclamante podrá dirigirse a la Dirección de la revista, instancia que podrá, de ser necesario, recurrir de común acuerdo con el/la reclamante, a la determinación de un árbitro final de fallo obligatorio para las partes.

 

GOOD PUBLICATION GUIDELINES
These Good publication guidelines are aimed at becoming a code of conduct addressed to the parties involved in the management and publication of scientific results in the journals of the Advanced Studies Institute (Instituto de Estudios Avanzados, IDEA): editor teams, authors, and paper reviewers.
1 Editor teams of IDEA journals
The Editorial Councils of the IDEA journals, together with their administrations and professional support personnel, are responsible for the published contents, so they must assure their scientific quality, avoiding poor practice in the publication of research results, and managing the publication of the received papers in a reasonable time. That responsibility implies abiding by the following principles:
1.1 Impartiality. The Editorial Council must be impartial when managing the papers submitted for publication, and it must respect the author's intellectual independence, whose right of reply in case of being evaluated negatively. Research Papers that in other instances have shown deficient results must not be excluded.
1.2 Confidentiality. The persons that constitute the Editorial Council are obliged to preserve the confidentiality of the texts that they receive and their content until they are accepted (or rejected) for publication. Only then their titles and authors may be made known. In case of rejection, the journal's editor will determine the opportunity for revealing this information. Also, no member of the Editorial Council may use for his own research data, arguments or interpretations contained in unpublished work, unless the authors have given their consent in writing.
1.3 Revisión de los trabajos. The Editorial Council must ensure that the published research papers have been evaluated by at least two specialists in the field, and that such revision processes have been fair and impartial. The method used in peer revision that is best adapted to the scientific community to which the journal is addressed must be made public. In particular, it is believed that the double-blind method (anonimity of those who have done the work and made the evaluation) is the one that must be practiced by our journals. When one of the two evaluations is negative, a third report will be requested.
The Editorial Council must weigh the rejection of an author to being evaluated by specific specialists (if the evaluation is not anonymous), if the arguments given are found reasonable. The Editorial Council is not obliged to reject those specialistas if it is considered that their opinions are fundamental for the correct evaluation of the paper.
Those submitting a paper for evaluation may propose the names of up to three specialists for the evaluation of their work. The Editorial Council reserves the right to accept that proposal, and is not obliged to communicate its decision.
The Editorial Council must stress that the evaluation must consider the originality of the work and detect plagiarism and redundant publications, as well as falsified or manipulated data. The sections of the journal whose contents are subject to peer revision must be indicated clearly.
The Editorial Council must value and thank the contribution of those who have collaborated in the evaluations of the papers sent to the journal. It must also promote the recognition by the academic authorities of peer revision as part of the scientific process and must dispense with evaluations that are of low quality, incorrect, disrespectful, or delivered outside the established deadlines.
1.4 Acceptance or rejection of manuscripts. The responsibility for accepting or rejecting the publication of a paper corresponds to the Editorial Council, which must base its decision on the reports received on that paper. Those reports must base their decision on the quality of the papers in terms of their importance, originality, and writing clarity.
The Editorial Council may reject directly the submitted papers without going through external advice if they are considered inappropriate for the journal because they lack the required quality, they are not adequate for the journal's scientific objectives, or because they show evidence of scientific fraud.
1.5 Overruling and notice of irregularity. The Editorial Council reserves the right to overrule already published papers that are later found to be unreliable due to involuntary errors, frauds, or poor scientific practice like data fabrication, manipulation or copy, plagiarized texts and redundant or duplicate publication, omission of references to the consulted sources, unauthorized or unjustified use of contents, etc. The objective of the overruling is to correct the already published scientific production, ensuring its integrity.
The conflict of duplicity, caused by the simultaneous publication of a paper in two journals, must be solved by determining the date of receipt of the manuscript by each of theose journals. If only one part of the paper contains an error, it can be rectified later by means of an editorial note or an errata.
In case of conflict, the journal must ask the author for the corresponding explanations and proofs to clarify it, and it will make a final decision based on them.
The journal is obliged to publish, in its printed and/or electronic versions, the notice on the overruling of a given text, mentioning the reasons for that measure, in order to distinguish malpractice from involuntary error. The journal will also report the overruling to those responsible for the author's institution. The decision to overrule a paper must be made as soon as possible, so that such erroneous paper will not be cited in the journal' research field.
The overruled papers will be kept in the electronic issue of the journal, noting clearly and unambiguously that it is an overruled paper, to distinguish it from other corrections or comments. In the printed issue the overrruling will be reported as soon as possible by means of an editorial or comunication, in the same terms that it was done in the electronic version.
Prior to the definitive overruling, the journal may issue a notice of irregularity, providing the necessary information in the same terms as in an overruling. The irregularity notice will be kept for the minimum required time, and it will end with its removal or with the formal overruling of the paper.
1.6 Application of the rules of the Editorial Council. The person acting as the Director of the journal is responsible for the correct application of the rules that regulate the functioning of the Editorial Council and of guaranteeing that its members are acquainted with them. Furthermore, specific aspects of its job are to promote and represent the journal publicly and legally in different forums and instances; suggesting and supporting possible improvements; getting the collaboration of specialists in the field; revising, in a first evaluation, the received papers; write editorials, revisions, comments, news, reviews, etc.; and attend the meetings of the Editorial Council.
1.7 Authorship rules. The rules for submitting originals to each journal (related to the length of the abstract and of the paper, the preparation of the images, the system for citing references, etc.) should be public.
1.8 Conflict of interest. A conflict of interest arises when a paper received by the journal is signed by a person who is part of the Editorial Council, by someone who has a direct personal or professional relation or is closely related to the past or present research of someone who is part of it. Anyone who falls into any of these cases must abstain from participating in the evaluation process of the proposed paper.
2 On the authorship of the articles in IDEA journals
2.1 Publishing rules. The papers submitted for publication must be the result of original and unpublished research. They must include the data obtained and used, as well as an objective discussion of its results. Sufficient information must be included so that any specialist can follow the research done and confirm or refute the interpretations upheld in the paper.
The authors must mention adequately the origin of the ideas or literal sentences taken from other published papers in the way specified in the journal's rules. When images are included as part of the research, how they were created or obtained must always be explained adequately when required for their understanding. If graphic material (figures, photographs, maps, etc.) partially reproduced in other publications is used, the authors should cite their source, including the corresponding reproduction permits if necessary.
Unnecesary fragmentation of the papers must be avoided. If it is a very long paper, it may be published in several parts, in such a way that each one develops a given aspect of the overall study. The various related papers should be published in the same journal to facilitate their interpretation by the readers.
2.2 Originality and plagiarism. The authors must ensure that the data and results presented in the paper are original and have not been copied, invented, distorted, or manipulated. Plagiarism in all its forms, multiple or redundant publication, as well as the invention or manipulation of data, are serious ethical faults and are considered scientific fraud. The authors must not send to an IDEA journal originals that have previously been soubmitted to another journal, nor must they send that original to another journal until he receives notice of its rejection or removes it voluntarily. However, it is admissible to publish a paper that extends another one already published as a short note, communication or summary of the minutes of a congress, provided the the text on which it is based and the modifications that mean a substantial change of what was already published are cited adequately. Secondary publications addressed to completely different readers, e.g., if the article is published in different languages or if there is a version for specialists with respect to another one addressed to the general public, are also acceptable. These circumstances must be specified and the original publication must be cited properly.
2.3 Authorship of the paper. In the case of multiple authorship, the author that appears as responsible for the paper to the journal must guarantee the recognition of those who have contributed significantly to the conception, planning, design, execution, data collection, interpretation and discussion of the paper's results; all the persons who sign it share the responsibility for the submitted paper. Also, the person acting as contact must ensure that those signing the paper have revised and approved its final version and agree to its possible publication.
The contact author must make sure that none of the signatures responsible for the paper have been omitted and that it therefore satisfies the coauthorship criteria, in this way avoiding ficticious or gratuitous authorship, which is a poor scientific practice. Also, in a note in the paper, the contribution of other collaborators that do not appear as signers and are not responsible for the final version of the paper must be acknowledged by a note.
If the signers of the paper request it, the published version must give a brief description of their individual contribution to the collective work.
2.4 Sources of information. Recognition must be given in the paper to the publications that had an influence on the research, so the bibliography must identify and cite the original sources on which the information contained in the paper is based. However, citations irelevant to the work or referring to similar examples should not be included, and mentioning research already established in the corpus of scientific knowledge should not be abused.
The author must not use the information obtained privately from conversations, correspondence, or some discussion with coleagues on the matter, unless he has an explicit permit in writing from his source of information and that information was received in a scientific advisory context.
2.5 Significant errors in published papers. When an author discovers a serious error in his work he is obliged to report it to the journal as soon as possible, to amend the paper, remove it, retract, or publish a correction or errata. If the possible error is detected by any of the members of the Editorial Council, the author is obliged to show that the work is right. The process for resolving these conflicts is the one described in section 1.5.
2.6 Conflict of interest. The text of the paper must go together with a declaration stating the existence of any commercial, financial or personal link that may affect the results and the conclusions of the paper. Also, all the financing sources of the study must be given. This information will appear in the published version of the paper.
3 Evaluation of papers in scientific journals.
The persons participating in the evaluation play an essential role in the process that guarantees the quality of the publication. They assist the journal's organs in making editorial decisions and in improving the papers.
3.1 Confidentiality. Whoever makes an evaluation must consider the paper that is being revised as a confidential document until it is published, during the revision process as well as after it. He must never spread or use the information, the details, arguments or interpretations contained in the text that is being revised in his own benefit or in that of others, or to harm third parties. Only in special cases he may get the advice of other specialists in the matter, and this must be reported to the journal's Editor.
3.2 Objectivity. Whoever makes an evaluation must judge objectively the quality of the complete work, i.e., including the information on which the working hypothesis is based, the theoretical and experimental data and their interpretation, without neglecting the presentation and writing of the text. He must confine his criticisms, and must be objective and constructive in his comments. He must give adequate arguments for his judgements, without adopting hostile stands and respecting the intellectual independence of the author of the work.
Whoever makes an evaluation must warn the Director of any substantial similarity between the paper submitted to evaluation and another paper either published or going through the evaluation process in another journal (redundant or duplicate publication). He must also call attention on plagiarized, falsified, invented or manipulated texts or data.
3.3 Promptness in responding. Whoever makes an evaluation must act promptly and must deliver his report in the agreed time, so he must notify the Director of possible delays.
Asimismo, deberá comunicar a la Dirección lo antes posible si no se considera capaz de
juzgar el trabajo encargado o en caso de que no pueda cumplir su tarea en el plazo acordado.
3.4 Recognition of the sources of information. Whoever makes an evaluation must verify that already published relevant papers on the subject are cited. To that end he must revise the bibliography collected in the text, suggesting the deletion of superfluous or redundant references, or the addition of others that have not been cited.
3.5 Conflict of interest. Whoever makes an evaluation must reject the revision of a paper when he has a professional or personal relation with any of the persons who have taken part in its authorship that can affect their judgement of that paper. There can also be conflicts of interest when the paper to be evaluated is closely related to one that he is developed at this time or to one that has already been published. If there is a doubt, he must resign from the assigned task and return the paper to the journal, stating the reasons for that decision.