Role and responsibility of the authors, contributors, editors and reviewers
Several entities worldwide have stated criteria and created guidelines and documents to support both the editors and authors from the analysis of specific problems regarding the scientific editorial practice. Some of them are mentioned below:
ICJME ǀ International Committee of Medical Journal Editors https://www.icmje.org/
COPE | Committee on Publication Ethics https://publicationethics.org/files/Code_of_conduct_for_journal_editors_0.pdf
The Journal DeporVida considers the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors´ suggestions that are reached jointly worldwide to solve the specific problems of the scientific editorial practice. This journal follows such ideas.
1. Defining the author and contributor’s role
Why is defining authorship important?
A scientific article´s authorship gives credit and has important social and academic impact. Hence, it implies the responsibility for the published submissions. The recommendations below ensure he who contributes with material or intellectual work through an article is recognized as an author, but also he must be aware of his role as responsible of what is being published.
To define the word author, DeporVida assumes the four criteria given by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. https://www.icmje.org/. They are:
1. There must be an important contribution to the conception or design of the article or the acquisition, analysis or interpretation of the data.
2. There must be participation in the design of the research or in the critical review of its intellectual content.
3. Be part of the approval of the final version that was published.
4. Having the capacity to answer to every aspect of the article to assure the related matters regarding accuracy or integrity of any part of the work is properly researched and solved.
The author, besides being partially responsible for the work, will identify the other coauthors, and will trust their integrity as well as their contributions.
Every author will comply with the four criteria above defining authorship and will be identified as such. Those not complying with them will be recognized in the section of the article acknowledgements.
Using these criteria give the author the possibility to be recognized as such and assume the responsibility for the work. These criteria are not meant to discredit contributors not complying with criteria numbers 2 and 3. Therefore, all persons fulfilling criterion 1 have the chance to participate in the review, writing and final approval of the manuscript.
Persons developing the work are responsible for identifying who actually have those requirements. The ideal thing to do is to identify them along the planning process to take the necessary changes, as the work makes progress. It is the authors´ decision, not this journal, to determine that every person listed as authors comply with the four criteria above. It is not the editor´s responsibility either, to determine who qualifies as author or who does not or on the contrary, to play the referee when there is a conflict about this matter. If these persons do not reach a unanimous understanding regarding who qualifies authorship, it is the responsibility of the institution(s) where the research took place to determine so; but never to the editor of the journal.
If it is requested to eliminate or add an author after the presentation or publication of the manuscript, the editor will ask for an explanation and a signed statement in relation to the change requested to all authors cited. In the writing must be clear who is being eliminated and who is being added.
The author responsible for the correspondence will always contact the editorial staff of the journal during the submission of the manuscript, its double-blind review process and, in general, will reply and fulfill correctly all the journal’s administrative requirements, as well as the details regarding authorship; also the conflict of interests. Other coauthors may be responsible, as well.
Along the submission and the double-blind review process the main author will be available to reply any inquiries that may arise; even after the submission is published to answer the works´ reviews and cooperate with any request from the journal about the data or any further information that may emerge on the subject dealt with in the article.
When the manuscript has been developed for a large group of persons, the ideal thing to do is that the group decides who will be the author before starting to work and before submitting it to the journal. All of the group members chosen as authors will fulfill the four criteria of authorship mentioned above; including the final approval of the manuscript. They will take full public responsibility for the work and will trust the accuracy and integrity of the rest of the authors within the group. Similarly, they will add the statement of conflict of interests individually.
Contributors that are not authors
Contributors that do not fulfill with the four criteria above to be recognized as authors, will not appear as such, but they will be recognized in the acknowledgements. Administrative support, help during writing, technical edition, translation, correction or printing test without any other contribution are examples of activities not recognizing a contributor as an author.
2. Authors´ responsibilities. Conflict of interests
Readership´s trust in the scientific process and the credibility in the published works mostly depends on the transparency the conflict of interests are handled along planning, implementing, writing, double-blind review, proofreading and the publishing process.
Conflict of interests are understood as the situation in which a difference between the personal interests of an individual and his responsibilities regarding the scientific activities he develops, either as authors, reviewers and members of the editorial board may influence his critical judgment and the integrity of his actions. Conflict of interests may be the following:
Economical: when the participant (author/reviewer/editor) has received or hopes to get some money out of the activities related to the research and its spreading.
Academic: when reviewers or editors express their support for a certain methodological or ideological trend in a way they may tend to favor the assessment of others’ works; reason why they are asked to express themselves beforehand.
Personal or work relationships: when participants (authors/reviewers/editor) have some kind of friendship, enmity, or work-related relationship. To avoid this, the editor will take into consideration the funding sources and affiliation of the authors to select reviewers not belonging to those specific groups.
Participants
Those participating in the double-blind peer review and the editorial process (authors, reviewers or referees, editorial staff and scientific board of the journal) will consider their conflict of interests along the review process and publication of a manuscript. All of them will tell the relationship that may be interpreted as sources of possible conflict of interests.
Authors
When authors present a manuscript, they will declare any personal or economic relationship that may not suggest impartially or favor their work.
Reviewers or referees
When requesting the perusal of a manuscript reviewers will be asked if they have any conflict of interests that may influence the review process. They will declare any conflict of interest that may jeopardize the review process. They may refuse to review these works if they cannot be impartial. Likewise, before their publication they will not use what they learned from the perusal to promote their own interests.
General editor and journal staff
The general editor will take the final decisions regarding the manuscripts and refrain from participating within the editorial decisions, if there is any kind of conflict of interests or relationships that may provoke them in relation to the articles being assessed.
Other members from the Editorial Board participating in the editorial decisions will give the general editor an updated description on their conflicts (that may be related to editorial opinions) and refrain from participating in the decisions where there is conflict of interests.
DeporVida will never use the information derived from the researches presented on its behalf.
3. Responsibilities along the submission and the double-blind peer review process
1. Authors
Authors will comply with the authorship principles and the conflict of interests’ statement explained in aspects 1 and 2 of this document. A large amount of entities are presented as scientific journal when they actually do not fulfill those functions (predatory journals). In this regard, authors will be aware of the integrity, history, practices and reputation of this journal they are submitting their works.
2. DeporVida Journal
Confidentiality
Manuscripts sent to this journal are property of the authors. Early spreading of some of the details of the submissions will be prejudicial to authors. Hence, the general editor will not share any information of the works to nobody else but the authors and the reviewers.
The general editor will also make clear to reviewers that the materials they will be reviewing and the information within are confidential. Reviewers and the rest of the Editorial Board will not argue the submissions in public, they neither assume the ideas presented in the manuscripts nor withhold the works for personal use.
When a manuscript is been published, the journal will save a copy of the original submission, comments, reviews and the correspondence for at least two years regarding the type of work to help answer future queries about the manuscript.
The general editor will not publish or announce any of the comments derived from the double-blind peer review without the consent of both the authors and the reviewers.
The policy of the journal is not to tell the authors who reviewed their work or their comments; therefore, the result is showed without the signature and the consent of the reviewers is needed to be identified.
If lack of honesty or fraud is evident, confidentiality may be compromised. However, the general editor will notify to both the authors and reviewers his intention to do so; otherwise, privacy must be respected.
Promptness
The general editor is responsible to endeavor to a fast editorial process regarding the resources available.
If the journal decides not to include a manuscript in the editorial process because it does not keep to the aims and scope of the journal, it will be rejected as soon as possible to let the authors submit it to any other journal.
Double-blind peer review process
Double-blind peer review process consists of the critical perusal of manuscripts by experts that usually are not part of the editing process of the journal requesting such review. Impartial, independent and critical review is an important part of the academic process. Hence, double-blind peer review is a significant part of the scientific process.
The real value of the double-blind peer review process has been widely discussed because it provides a fair assessment of the submission among members of the scientific community. From the practical point of view, it helps deciding what manuscripts are more suitable for the journal. Double-blind peer review mostly helps both the authors and reviewers to improve the quality of the manuscripts.
It is the journal´s responsibility to ensure an adequate system to selecting the reviewers and make them have access to every material relevant for the perusal of the submission. Likewise, guarantee their comments are properly understood in case there is any conflict of interests, if declared.
The general editor will notify the reviewers the final decision whether the submission was accepted or not; at the time their contribution will be acknowledged.
DeporVida has no the obligation to request for the double-blind peer review to all the manuscripts sent.
Integrity
Every submission sent to the journal will be assessed by its intellectual content avoiding any type of discrimination along the process; race discrimination of any kind is also avoided; against the woman; homophobia; trans-phobia; and bi-phobia; sexual orientation and discrimination on the basis of gender, or disability is not allowed; migratory workers and their families; child exploitation, sex abuse, prostitution and child pornography; intolerance and persecution for religious ideas; in general, against discrimination on the basis of language, age, political opinions or others, national or social origin, national minority membership, fortune, birth or any other situation, and against genocide crime.
Consequently, those external reviews exerting any personal position to the quality of the submission will be rejected.
As a result, editing decisions will be based on the relevance of the manuscript to the journal; also, originality, quality level demanded and adaptation to the scientific objectives will be considered. These decisions under any circumstances will be influenced by commercial interests, personal relationships, negative findings which credibility challenges the knowledge accepted.
3. Reviewers
The submissions sent to this journal constitute confidential communications from the authors; who will be prejudiced if early spreading of part or the whole manuscript occurs.
Reviewers, therefore, will keep both the manuscript and the information within confidential. They will not discuss in public any work, or appropriate any of the authors’ ideas before it is published. They will not either keep the manuscript for personal use. They will reply soon the request to assess and present their comments within the next month, time established by the journal. Their comments will be constructive, honest and polite.
Likewise, they will state their conflict of interests and in case there is any, they will not take part in the double-blind peer review.
4. Protection of the subjects participating in researches
Persons participating in researches as part of the sample have the right to remain confidential, state that will not be changed without their express consent. In this regard, the identifiable information non-essential will be omitted. If any doubt regarding the anonymity state remains, an informed consent must be registered. Once there is an informed consent it will be indicated in the article.
