Ethical guidelines for publishing papers in Lletres Asturianes
Peer review for publication of an article in the magazine Lletres Asturianes is a key element in the development of a coherent and respected network of knowledge. It is a direct reflection of the quality of work and the institutions that support it. The peer-reviewed articles support and structure the scientific method. Consistently, it is important to agree on standards of expected ethical behaviour of all the parties involved in the process of publishing: the author, the magazine, the reviewers and the society.
The Asturian Language Academy, as publisher of the magazine Lletres Asturianes, peer-reviewed, double blind, assumes its duty of protection at all stages of the publication and declares its commitment with the scientific community, ensuring the ethics and the quality of its published articles. As a benchmark, the magazine Lletres Asturianes uses the Code of Conduct and Good Practices for scientific journals, defined for publishers by the Ethics Committee Publications (cope) and also follows the recommendations and policies of the international scientific community.
Duties of authors
Reporting Standards
Research papers submitted for publication must be the result of original and unpublished research. They incorporate the data obtained and handled, as well as an objective discussion of the results. They provide enough information for any specialist to repeat the research done and confirm or reject the interpretations advocated in jobs.
Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unacceptable behaviour and are unethical.
The reviews and professional publications and articles should also be accurate as reliable and objective as possible and editorial opinion’s works shall be clearly identified as such.
Data accsess and retention
Authors may be asked to provide the raw data in connection with a paper for editorial review, and should be prepared to provide public access to such data, if practicable, and should in any event be prepared to retain such data for a reasonable time after publication.
Originality and plagiarism
The authors should ensure that they have written entirely original works, and if the authors have used the work and/or words of others that this has been appropriately cited or quoted. Plagiarism takes many forms, from passing off another paper as the author own paper, to copying or paraphrasing substantial parts of another paper (without attribution), to claiming results from research conducted by others. Plagiarism in all its forms constitutes unethical publishing behaviour and is unacceptable.
Multiple, redundant or concurrent publication
An author should not in general publish manuscripts describing essentially the same research in more than one journal or primary publication. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behaviour and is unacceptable.
Acknowledgement of sources
Proper acknowledgment of the work of others must always be given. Authors should cite publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work.
Information obtained privately, as in conversation, correspondence, or discussion with third parties, must not be used or reported without explicit, written permission from the source. Information obtained in the course of confidential services, such as refereeing manuscripts or grant applications, must not be used without the explicit written permission of the author of the work involved in these services.
Authorship of the paper
Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the reported study. All those who have made significant contributions should be listed as co-authors. Where there are others who have participated in certain substantive aspects of the research project, they should be acknowledged or listed as contributors. The corresponding author should ensure that all appropriate co-authors and no inappropriate co-authors are included on the paper, and that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the paper and have agreed to its submission for publication.
Disclosure and conflicts of interest
All authors should disclose in their manuscript any financial or other substantive conflict of interest that might be construed to influence the results or interpretation of their manuscript. All sources of financial support for the project should be disclosed. Potential conflicts of interest should be disclosed at the earliest stage possible.
Fundamental errors in published works
When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in his/her own published work, it is the author’s obligation to promptly notify the journal editor or publisher and cooperate with the editor to retract or correct the paper. If the editor or the publisher learns from a third party that a published work contains a significant error, it is the obligation of the author to promptly retract or correct the paper or provide evidence to the editor of the correctness of the original paper.
Duties of reviewers
Contributions to editorial decisions
Peer review assists the editor in making editorial decisions and through the editorial communications with the author may also assist the author in improving the paper. Peer review is an essential component of formal scholarly communication, and lies at the heart of the scientific method.
Promptness
Any selected referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the editor and excuse himself from the review process.
Confidentiality
Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be shown to or discussed with others except as authorized by the editor.
Standards of objectivity
Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate.
Referees should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.
Acknowledgement of sources
Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation. A reviewer should also call to the editor’s attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge.
Disclosure and conflict of interest
Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.
Duties of editorial board
Publication decisions
The editorship of the peer-reviewed journal Lletres Asturianes is responsible for deciding which of the articles submitted to the journal should be published. The validation of the work in question and its importance to researchers and readers must always drive such decisions. The editor may be guided by the policies of the journal’s editorial board and constrained by such legal requirements as shall then be in force regarding libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism.
Fair play
An editor at any time evaluate manuscripts for their intellectual content without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the authors.
Confidentiality
The editor and any editorial staff must not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher, as appropriate.
Disclosure and conflicts of interest
Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in an editor’s own research without the express written consent of the author. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. When a member of the Editorial Board has a conflict of interest with the author or coauthor of a paper may not participate in the decision making process of publication. The editorship of the journal should require all collaborators to report potential conflicts of interest in order to solve the problem, if necessary, before the publication of the paper.
Sources:
cope (Committee on Publication Ethics): http://www.publicationethics.org
Código de buenas prácticas científicas del csic. Madrid, CSIC, 2011.
Peer review process, double blind, for publishing papers
As stated in the rules of publication, the work will be blind reviewed by two external reviewers. If necessary, will be sent to a third reviewer. Ultimately, the Directorate of the journal will have the final decision about your publication.
Each reviewer will prepare a detailed opinion outlining the reasons for the acceptance, revision (following the Journal’s guidelines as regards revision), or rejection of the work under consideration.
Throughout the process the anonymity of both authors and reviewers will be preserved.
The average length of time between receiving the text of the study and informing the author of the result of its evaluation will not be more than four months (except in unforeseen circumstances).
The basic evaluation criteria are:
- Relevance to the general subject areas of the
- Originality and scientific relevance of the work (subject, method, data, results, ).
- Scientific and methodological
- Updated
- Organization of contents and good language
- Conformance to the style conventions of the
- Convenience of paper regarding Asturian language and literature understood in the broadest possible sense.