Code of ethics

Synergyis governed by COPE's rules of ethics in publishing, which are included in the COPE's page and in manuals such as Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers; COPE, A Brief Guide to Ethical Publishing for New Editors; COPE Guidelines on Good Publication Practices, and other flowcharts and brochures produced by them. These documents establish the following guidelines for authors, reviewers, and editors. We invite you to read them and make sure you comply with them, depending on the category in which you are participating.

Ethical Standards for Authors

Following the COPE guidelines described above, authors who submit their manuscripts to Sinergía, Revista de Lenguaje y Cultura, are generally requested to:

Submit original papers, and make sure these are not redundant, double or multiple; publications simultaneous or fragmented publications, which is known as publications salami (Elsevier). Such works will not be considered by the journal, and if the process has been started, they will be discarded or withdrawn from it.

Inform the editor if similar versions of the manuscript have appeared or are being considered elsewhere.

Include only the actual authors of the study, that is, people who have made significant intellectual contributions to the study.

Refrain from having the following types of authors in your manuscripts: “ghost”, “gift”, and “guests”.

Agree on the order of authorship, since this must be a joint decision between the co-authors, taking into account that, in general, the first author is considered to be the one who made the most significant contribution to the manuscript.

Check that there is no plagiarism and that all external contributions are properly cited (see definitions in this section).

Be aware that by submitting your manuscript to Sinergia, you accept that it may be examined for plagiarism against previously published works, including your own (self-plagiarism) through a similarity checking system called Crosscheck, which indicates the degree of coincidence with other works already published. Likewise, the team will carry out a verification of materials in other languages ​​when there is a suspicion that the text may have been partially or totally published in another language.

Use no more than 10% of the total citations of the manuscript for self-citations.

Ensuring that the identity of study participants is not revealed avoid incurring defamation, conflict of interests, either fraud.

Maintain respectful and professional communication with the editor.

Refrain from submitting other manuscripts to the journal until an editorial decision has been made regarding the first submission.

Ethical Standards for Evaluators

According to the COPE guidelines, in general terms, it is the duty of the evaluators:

Maintain confidentiality in the evaluation of the manuscript. This extends to your colleagues, who you can ask (with the publisher's permission) to give their opinions on specific sections.

Avoid keeping or copying the submitted manuscript.

Refrain from making use of the content included in the manuscripts (for example, data, arguments or interpretations) for purposes other than those of the evaluation, unless they have the permission of the authors.

Provide prompt, accurate, courteous, impartial, and justifiable reports.

In case of suspicion of misconduct, confidentially inform the editor

Notify the editor immediately if you have reviewed a similar manuscript for another journal and let the editor decide what to do in this case.

Promptly notify the editor if you are unable to report anonymously (for example, due to comments made to authors).

Request an extension immediately, if you cannot meet the proposed dates.

Reject the invitation immediately if you believe that the topic does not fit your line of research or if your current occupations prevent you from giving an opinion within the stipulated period.

Suggest alternative evaluators when you have any impediment.

Avoid deliberately favoring or unduly opposing the publication of a manuscript based on whether or not it confirms your beliefs or your own publications.

Make sure the report is the type you would like to receive as an author, or as an editor (Journal System).

Carry out your evaluation objectively.

Refrain from making personal criticism of the author.

Express your views clearly with supporting arguments and references as necessary without resorting to defamatory or foul language.

Refuse to review manuscripts in which they have a competing interest resulting from personal or professional relationships with any of the authors, companies, or institutions related to the manuscripts.

Respect the confidentiality of the material provided to you.

Get permission from the editor when you want to pass a review request to a colleague

Ethical Standards for Publishers

Following the guidelines of COPE, the Editors Editors of Sinergía, Revista de Lenguaje y Cultura, are asked to:

Ensuring that manuscripts are evaluated for their intellectual content regardless of race, gender, etc. of the authors.

Accept or reject papers based exclusively on the criteria chosen by the journal, such as importance, originality, and clarity of the document, and the relevance of the study to the mission of the journal.

Select manuscripts based on their quality and suitability for readers, not on the immediate financial, political, or personal gain they may offer.

Give special relevance to those studies that refute works previously published in this or other journals.

Refrain from excluding studies reporting negative results.

Ensuring that all submitted manuscripts are peer-reviewed prior to publication, and anticipate all potential biases they may have, due to interests related to or conflicting with the study.

Accept responsibility when a published article is subsequently found to contain major flaws, and correct them promptly and conspicuously

Encourage proper attribution of authorship and discourage the use of authorsguestseitherghosts.

Maintain ethical supervision of published research.

Have systems to guarantee the protection of the identities of the authors and peer reviewers.

Follow up on cases of suspected misconduct, including those where the manuscript is not going to be published, and act courteously, fairly but firmly at all times.

Communicate with perpetrators, or evaluators for an explanation when there are suspected cases of misconduct, avoiding accusations and instead stating the facts clearly, providing evidence, and allowing perpetrators an opportunity to explain their actions before taking action. decision.

To the extent possible, involve other editors (preferably the one directly involved in publishing the manuscript) when there are concerns about plagiarism, fabrication, or authorship disputes.

Always be willing to post corrections, clarifications, retractions, and apologies when necessary.

Important Definitions

The following is a list of definitions that can help you understand the ethical standards in publishing.

Author: For a person to be credited as an author, they must meet four criteria:

Have made a substantial contribution to the study, in its conception and design, data acquisition, analysis and interpretation.

Have participated in the writing or evaluation of the manuscript in terms of its intellectual content.

Have given their approval of the final version.

Agree to be responsible for all aspects of the work related to the accuracy or completeness of any part of it (Ethics in Research and Publication, Elsevier).

In general, there are 3 types of authors that should be avoided:

"ghost" authors: They are those who contribute substantially but are not recognized (often paid by commercial sponsors).

Guest Authors: These are the ones that make no discernible contributions, but are included to help increase the chances of publication.

Authors "gift”: Are those whose contribution is based solely on a tenuous relationship with the study (Ethics in Research & Publication, Elsevier).

Conflict of interests:These are situations that exert an undue influence on the presentation, evaluation and publication of a work. They can be financial, nonfinancial, professional, contractual, or personal in nature (Publishing Ethics: Academic Research, Cambridge University Press).

Defamation: Language, both in submitted manuscripts and in peer review reports or correspondence, that could give rise to legal action or negligent misrepresentation. Such language, which may be directed at corporate bodies and associations as well as individuals, should not appear in published articles and should be removed from any peer review reports or correspondence transmitted to the author (Best Practice Guidelines on Publishing Ethics, Wiley ).

Fraud: Research fraud is “publishing data or conclusions that were not generated by experiments or observations, but by invention or manipulation of data. There are two types in research and scientific publication:

Manufacturing:Invent data and results of an investigation, to later record or report them.

Falsification: Manipulate materials, images, data, equipment or processes of an investigation. Falsification includes changing or omitting data or results in such a way that the research cannot be accurately represented. A person can falsify data to fit the desired end result of a study (FACTSHEET: Research fraud, Elsevier).

Plagiarism: Plagiarism is defined as “presenting as one's own work, regardless of the intention to mislead, that which is derived in part or in its entirety from the work of others, without due acknowledgment”. Examples of plagiarism include the following:

Quoting another person's work verbatim without due acknowledgment of the source.

Paraphrasing someone else's work by changing some of the words or the word order, without due acknowledgment of the source.

Using ideas taken from another person without reference to the creator.

Cut and paste from the Internet to create a pastiche of online sources.

Submitting someone else's work as part of your own without clearly identifying who did the work. For example, not acknowledging the research contributed by others to a joint project.

Plagiarism can also arise from collusion with another person that has not been declared or acknowledged (ie, where collaboration is hidden or prohibited) (Publishing Ethics: Academic Research, Cambridge University Press).

types of plagiarism: The publication literature mentions at least 5 types of plagiarism:

Literal: Reproduce a work word for word, in whole or in part, without permission and acknowledgment of the original source.

Substantial: Reproduce research materials, processes, or charts.

I paraphrase: Reproduction of another person's ideas, without permission or acknowledgment of the source.

Recycling: Reproduce portions of the author's work in a manuscript, and resubmit it for publication as entirely new work (Ethics in Research & Publication-Elsevier)

self-plagiarism: Refers to the reuse of previously disclosed own content, which is passed off as a "new" product without the reader knowing that this material has appeared previously (Avoiding Plagiarism, Self-plagiarism, and other Questionable Writing Practices: A Guide to Ethical Writing, Miguel Roig).

Redundant, double or multiple publication: Occurs when two or more manuscripts, without complete cross reference, essentially share the same hypotheses, methodology, discussion, points or conclusions (COPE-Guidelines on Good Publication Practice).

salami post: It consists of breaking or segmenting a large study into two or more publications. These segments are known as "slices" of a study. As a general rule, whenever the "slices" of a split study share the same hypothesis, population, and methods, they are engaging in unacceptable practice (Ethics in Research & Publication, Elsevier).

Simultaneous publication: Occurs when a person submits a paper to different journals at the same time, which may result in more than one journal publishing the same manuscript (Ethics in Research & Publication-Elsevier).

Claims Process

Once the background information has been analyzed, the chief editor will seek to clarify the situation with the editorial team and the deputy editors, evaluating each case individually. The final decision will be informed to the applicant by email, and it is not appealable for the authors.

In general terms, in the resolution of cases, Sinergía Magazine will follow the guidelines established by COPE.

Retractions, Corrections, and Expressions of Concern

For retractions, corrections, or expressions of concern, Sinergía abides by the COPE Guidelines. In general these indicate the following with respect to these categories:

Retractions: According to COPE, retractions are a mechanism for correcting the literature and alerting readers to articles that have such flawed or erroneous content or data that their findings and conclusions cannot be trusted. This unreliable content may be the result of honest error, naive errors, or research misconduct.

Retractions are specifically made when publishers have clear evidence that:

Findings are unreliable, either as a result of gross error (eg, calculation error or experimental error), or as a result of fabrication (eg, data) or falsification (eg, image manipulation)

There is plagiarism.

Findings have been previously published elsewhere without proper attribution to previous sources, or disclosure to the publisher, permission to republish, or justification (ie, cases of redundant publication).

The publication contains material or data without authorization of use.

Copyright has been infringed or there is some other serious legal issue (eg defamation, privacy).

Unethical research is reported.

It has been published solely on the basis of a compromised or rigged peer review process.

The authors did not disclose a material conflict of interest that, in the opinion of the editor, would have unduly affected the interpretations of the work or the recommendations of the editors and peer reviewers.

According to COPE, when making retractions, some conditions must be met:

Link them to the retracted article whenever possible (ie in all online versions).

Clearly identify the retracted article (for example, by including the title and authors in the retract header or by citing the retracted article).

Clearly identify the section as a retraction (ie, distinct from other types of correction or comment).

Publish them promptly to minimize harmful effects.

Make them freely available to all readers (i.e. not behind gates or available only to subscribers).

Indicate who is retracting the article.

Indicate the reason(s) for the retraction.

Be objective, and avoid inflammatory language (COPE Retraction Guidelines).

Fixes: According to Wiley's Best Practice Guidelines on Publishing Ethics, corrections are published when readers or authors report a material error in the publication, especially if it is an error that may affect the interpretation of the data or of the information presented in an article. However, the error cannot be so fundamental that it invalidates the work, since retraction must be used in this case. When published, they should be fully distinguished from retractions and expressions of concern about malpractice. In addition, they must be included in indexing systems, be linked to the article, and be free to consult, such as retractions (Best Practice Guidelines on Publishing Ethics-Wiley).

According to Publishing Ethics: Academic Research-Cambridge University Press, corrections are only issued if it is the author who made the error, because if it is the journal, an errata will be issued. If it's a minor error, such as would likely occur during typesetting or proofreading, journals can make the changes without notice. (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 feels that readers should be aware of possible misleading information (Best Practice Guidelines on Publishing Ethics-Wiley).

According to COPE, editors should consider publishing an expression of concern when:

Receive inconclusive evidence of research or publication misconduct by the authors;

There is evidence that the findings are unreliable, but the authors' institution refuses to investigate the case;

Believe that an investigation into alleged posting-related misconduct has not been, or would not be, fair and impartial or conclusive;

An investigation is underway, but there will be no trial for a considerable time;

As in the case of retractions and corrections, COPE suggests that expressions of concern be linked to the article and the reasons for the concern are stated. If in the future, more evidence is found for the case, the expression of concern could be replaced by a retraction notice or exoneration statement, depending on the case (COPE Forum 26 February 2018: Expressions of Concern).