Psychologist Papers is a scientific-professional journal, whose purpose is to publish reviews, meta-analyzes, solutions, discoveries, guides, experiences and useful methods to address problems and issues arising in professional practice in any area of the Psychology. It is also provided as a forum for contrasting opinions and encouraging debate on controversial approaches or issues.
Papeles del Psicólogo / Psychologist Papers grants special importance to ethics in research and editorial management. The editorial team knows and attempts to enforce the ethical recommendations offered by organizations such as the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), the Council of Science Editors (CSE) or The European Association of Science Editors (EASE). For this purpose, it considers it essential to involve all the parties who participate in the process. Below is a summary of the journal's ethical standards for editors, reviewers and authors.
The editors of the magazine undertake to be impartial in the management of the work, guiding their decisions only by criteria of scientific quality and seeking support for this in the opinion of experts, who are also impartial. Publishers reject any discrimination because of gender, sexual orientation, religious or political beliefs, or ethnic or geographical origin. Publishers will not manage works in which they have some commercial interest.
The editors will pay special attention to the detection of plagiarism, or redundant or duplicate publication. If it is detected, they will give the authors an opportunity to provide the explanations they deem appropriate. The editors' dealings with reviewers and authors will be cordial, attempting to argue their comments, which should be as clear and immediate as possible.
The reviewers must evaluate the work objectively, following scientific criteria. The reviewers' comments to the authors must be constructive, always aimed at improving the evaluated work. The reviewers undertake to maintain the confidentiality of any information relating to the reviewed work (content or management). As the reviewers are experts in the topic of the assigned work, and are familiar with the latest publications on the subject, they are obliged to denounce any case of plagiarism or redundant publication that they might detect. They should also denounce authors' cases of obvious fabrication or falsification of data.
In the event that, despite the double-blind review, the reviewers identify the authorship of the work and this may affect the impartiality of their evaluation, they must refuse to review the work, thereby justifying their decision to the editor.
The works submitted must be unpublished and must not be in the process of review or have been sent simultaneously to other publications. The authors must confirm this fact during the process of manuscript submission through the platform (in the box that appears on the screen for manuscript submission). The authors must acknowledge and cite content reproduced from other sources. They must also obtain permission to reproduce any content from other sources.
The corresponding author is responsible for ensuring that the authorship includes the appropriate co-authors, that all of them approve the submitted version of the manuscript and express their conformity with its submission to the journal. The submitted file cannot contain any personal data of the authors.
Authors should ensure that any studies involving human or animal subjects conform to national, local and institutional laws and requirements (e.g. Personal Data Protection Law) and confirm that approval has been sought and obtained where appropriate. In the “Method” section of the manuscript (subsection “Procedure”), the permissions or consents obtained to collect the data must be explicitly indicated, especially in the case of samples made up of minors. The procedure followed should, in any case, be in accordance with the regulations in force on data protection. During the process of submitting the manuscript through the platform, the corresponding author should describe the financial or personal relations that the authors may have with other people or organizations and that could give rise to a conflict of interest in relation with the article submitted for publication.
The authors must maintain accurate records of data associated with their submitted manuscript, and to supply or provide access to these data, on reasonable request. The authors must notify promptly the journal editor or publisher if a significant error in their publication is identified. They must cooperate with the editor and publisher to publish an erratum, addendum, corrigendum notice, or to retract the paper, where this is deemed necessary.
Misconduct and unethical behaviour may be identified and brought to the attention of the editor at any time, by anyone. Whoever informs of such conduct should provide sufficient information and evidence in order for an investigation to be initiated. All allegations should be taken seriously and treated in the same way, until a successful decision or conclusion is reached.
Unethical behaviour can be slight (e.g., a misunderstanding) or serious (a clear intent to deceive) and, depending on its severity, it can lead to different consequences for the work and its authors. Following the guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) in order of severity are the following (may be applied separately or in conjunction):
a. A letter of explanation (and education) to the authors, if it is considered that there has been no ill intention.
b. A letter of reprimand and warning as to future conduct.
c. A formal letter to the relevant head of institution or funding body.
d. Publication of a notice of redundant publication or plagiarism.
e. An editorial giving full details of the misconduct.
f. Refusal to accept future submissions from the individual, unit, or institution responsible for the misconduct, for a stated period.
g. Formal withdrawal or retraction of the paper from the scientific literature, informing other editors and the indexing authorities.
h. Reporting the case to the authorities which can investigate and act with due process.
Authors should be given the opportunity to respond to any charge of misconduct.