Ería Revista Cuatrimestral de Geografía uses the standard of ethical conduct and good practices in publications of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) in order to guarantee a quality editorial practice. This code of behavior involves all parts of the process (authors, reviewers and editorial team), who must comply with the following principles: 

Authors

-identification of authorship: all people who significantly contribute to the conception, design, development and presentation of the work must be recognized as co-authors and must approve the proposed version for evaluation and, where appropriate, for the final publication. Those who have not assumed a participation cannot be considered as authors. Other contributions and collaborations (advice, access to sources, financial support, etc.) will be mentioned in an acknowledgment section.

-originality: works must be original and not plagiarized. In case of partially using content and ideas by other authors, they must be cited.

-redundant publication: the submitted papers should not constitute already published research (in essence, form, frame of reference and conclusions) by the same authors in other journals.

-simultaneous evaluation: submitting the same work to evaluation in more than one journal simultaneously is considered unacceptable practice.

-quality standards for publication: texts must present evidence of the way in which the research has been carried out, state the aims pursued and justify their interest. The results must be presented clearly and the data must be exploited in a precise and rigorous way, without inaccuracies or fraudulent treatment of the information.

-indication of sources: the publications, documents and services of any kind that have inspired, oriented and / or enriched the development of the research must be pointed out, including those resulting from the private exchange of information (interview, correspondence, forum, etc.) - being necessary, in the latter case, the explicit and written permission of the interlocutors who serve as a source. 

-risks resulting from research procedures: if certain practices or the use of tools involve significant risks, this circumstance must be indicated in the corresponding place in the manuscript.

-conflicts of interest: when submitting the work, conflicts of interest that could arise around the publication should be communicated.

-access to information and data retention: availability will be maintained during the evaluation process and, where appropriate, while the edition is being prepared, as well as after publication.

-errors in published works: authors must notify of any inaccuracies or relevant errors found in their own published work, as well as collaborate to correct or retract it. Likewise, the editor's observations will be taken into account if the editorial team identifies the error.

Reviewers

-scientific contribution: the blind peer review should be understood as an essential contribution to editorial decision-making and a basic factor for improving research.

-objectivity: the task has to be carried out in an objective, impartial and constructive way. Any observation must be based on scientific foundations.

-confidentiality: the review process should be conceived as a confidential procedure that cannot be shown or shared with third parties.

-availability: in case of not being able to meet the requested deadline or observe any impediment to undertake the review with the necessary rigor, the editor must be informed as soon as possible.

-incompatibility and / or conflict of interest: in case of observing any justified reason for not undertaking the task (competitive, collaborative relationship, etc. with the author or other agents related to the work), the editor must be informed.

-use of scientific content: the works in evaluation should not be used by reviewers for their own research without citing them. The evaluation cannot be conceived as an advantageous access to research results for the professional benefit of reviewers.

-identification of sources: reviewers should contribute to the identification of sources, ideas, information, etc. that have not been cited by the authors. They will also warn about notable coincidences between the work in evaluation and others already published.

Editorial team

-acceptance of papers for publication: the acceptance of a paper rests with the editor, who relies on the policies of the Editorial Board (based on the journal's approach, guidelines for authors, recommendations of the reviewers and recognition of the academic and scientific validity of the works, without other interests intervening). 

-confidentiality: the identities of authors and reviewers or information about the works received are not revealed. An anonymous blind peer review process is guaranteed.

-objectivity: the works received are valued only for their contribution to knowledge, without giving importance to personal attributes or other professionals (ethnicity, gender, belief, ideology, institutional affiliation, etc.). To this end, specialists are selected with a commitment to objectivity.

-rejection of bad practices: procedures are used to detect bad practices in a systematic way (for example, plagiarism detection programs supplied by the University of Oviedo). The editorial team will act in accordance with current regulations on defamation, copyright infringement and plagiarism. They will take appropriate measures when receiving any sufficiently substantiated notification regarding misconduct. They may also request advice from the Editorial Board, qualified specialists or accredited bodies.

-use of scientific content: the works received should not be used by the team for their own research without the author's consent or reference to the work. The editorial task cannot be conceived as an advantageous access to research results for the professional benefit of the editorial team.

-conflicts of interest: the editorial team will require all members and collaborators to communicate possible conflicts of interest regarding the reception, evaluation or publication of works (due to competitive, collaborative or other connections with the authors and / or collaborating entities).