Editorial Policies

Archives of Pathology endorses and strives to follow the recommendations of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), the World Association of Medical Publishers guidelines on editorial independence, the Publication Ethics Committee's code of best publishing practices ( COPE), and tips for good research reporting.
All submissions must represent original works and must not be under evaluation or sent to another journal. Articles submitted that have already been evaluated by another journal must include the corresponding rejection letter from that journal during submission. The concepts presented in the published articles are the sole responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of the journal or its Editorial Board. The dates of submission and acceptance of the manuscript will be published at the end of the article, together with the declarations of conflict of interest, financial support and contributions from the authors, as declared by the authors.
Statements of Ethics and Malpractice in Publications
Publishing malpractice is an unfortunate occurrence in the world of academic literature. Archives of Pathology has a direct and very responsible commitment to complying with all ethical standards and responsibility for authorship aimed at excellence in this field and avoiding the illegal use of copyright and intellectual property.
The prevention of bad practices in publications is the responsibility of each author, editor, reviewer, and institution. Archives of Pathology will hold each author responsible for the performance and compliance with these policies. It is an individual responsibility of the authors to comply with these rules.
Publishing ethics
The editor-in-chief and the entire editorial committee will take reasonable steps to identify and prevent the publication of documents in which there has been a lack of good research conduct, such as plagiarism, manipulation of citations and falsification or fabrication of data. .
In no event will Pathology Archives or its editors encourage such misconduct, or allow it to occur knowingly that it is. In the event that the publisher or editors of the journal are aware of any allegation of misconduct related to an article published in their journal, the measures included in the COPE guidelines (or its equivalent) will be taken to deal with the accusations.
In the event that clinical research is published, its authors must obtain the approval of the research committee and the ethics committee of the institution where it is carried out and that they can verify the conditions in which patients will be treated and the resources available to solve problems. arising in the course of the investigation. The journal relies on the reports of the ethics committees of the institutions where the work was carried out, particularly when they belong to universities or healthcare entities that have achieved prestige in the control of medical research.
Research carried out on experimental animals must meet conditions regarding how these animals are kept and handled. Its fulfillment must also be controlled by an institutional committee of ethics of experimental research and this must be explicit in the respective manuscript.
The authors of the manuscript must declare whether or not they have conflicts of interest. If there are, it is imperative that they identify them and explain what their relationship to work was. This will allow editors, external reviewers and readers to form a judgment about the influence they may have had on the presentation of the results and their interpretation.
External experts, invited by the editors to comment on the quality of a manuscript, must in turn declare whether or not they have conflicts of interest with said manuscript, such as direct relationships with its authors (personal, family or institutional), rivalry for share a similar line of work, civil servant, commercial or advisory relationship with the entity that financed the work, or with another that competes with it. If these conflicts could bias their opinion (or raise doubts about their independence) they should decline the review of the manuscript. However, editors should not dispense with the opinion of an expert who declared a potential conflict of interest until they have weighed the relevance of that conflict against the benefits of the expert's expertise and perspective on the topic they wish to consult.
Publishers must also meet the conditions of the previous point. If there are conflicts of interest between an editor and a manuscript or its authors, that editor should exclude himself from the selection of external reviewers, the analysis of their opinions and the decision to accept or not the publication of the manuscript.

Peer-review
Articles submitted to Archives of Pathology will undergo the following double-blind peer review process:
The first step after receiving the submission: The editorial assistant will verify that the articles do not violate the editorial policies and formatting guidelines, and they will be returned for adjustments, if necessary. The second step of the evaluation is the editorial review, which will focus on language and scope. This review is carried out by one of the scientific editors. In this step, the article can be returned to the authors for further amendments before moving on to the peer review step. In the final step of the article evaluation, the editor in charge sends the manuscript for in-depth review by at least two other members of the Publications Committee and / or ad hoc reviewers, or eventually a new ad hoc reviewer will be invited. In the event of a discrepancy between the opinions of the two reviewers, the editor-in-charge requests the opinion of a third reviewer. Reviews are carried out on the online submission and evaluation system using a score sheet.
Articles can be rejected with a detailed rejection letter sent to the authors, or accepted with minor or major revisions. In the last, the authors receive a report with the required revision and its subsequent forwarding. Finally, when the peer review does not require further amendments, the manuscript is accepted and sent to production. The final decision is made by the Editor-in-Chief, taking into account the evaluation of the reviewers and the recommendation of the managing editor. Articles sent to authors for review must be returned within a maximum period of 10 days; otherwise, the process will be interrupted and the article may be rejected.
The deadline for the publication of an article depends on the editorial cycle, which involves steps that may not depend directly on the responsibility of the journal. The steps that take the most time are the peer review process and the author's response to editorial requirements. Thus, the period between submission and publication is quite variable but does not exceed 2 months. Articles not accepted for publication will always be returned to the authors with the comments of the Editor and / or Reviewer.
Editors should always be ready to post corrections, clarifications, retractions, and apologies when necessary.
If, after the publication of the manuscript, an error or omission is discovered in the observance of the ethical standards of scientific publications, they are considered serious faults. Once the editors become aware of the problem, they have the obligation to inform the authors, the authorities of the institution where the manuscript originated, and the entity that financed the work. Considering that the manuscript is already available to the public, the editors should report the fact in a prominent place in a future issue of the journal.