Code of ethics and good practice for Editors

This Code[1] sets out some guidelines that describe the good behaviour of the editors involved in the journal, in order to ensure rigorous and quality research. The editors are primarily responsible for the process of publication in a research journal such as Análisis, as they enjoy a central position directly related to all the members and members of the journal. Editors have a responsibility to ensure high standards of quality and basic ethical commitments in research, in order to bring maximum benefit to the scientific community in philosophical disciplines. Editors should consider themselves as members of the professional publishing community, always keeping an eye on the journal's development policies and ensuring that all members of the editorial board are informed and aware of the ethical guidelines concerning their tasks. Editors are responsible for informing authors and evaluators of the honesty, responsibility, and impartiality that they are to perform. The following are basic guidelines for ethical behaviour in accordance with the principles, policies and procedures that are particularly important for ensuring the moral integrity of the journal Análisis.

 

1. Accountability

1.1 Editors are responsible for all material published in the journal and should therefore follow the policies and procedures necessary to ensure the quality and maintain the integrity of the publication.

1.2 The editor-in-chief of the journal has the final say on the publication or rejection of each paper that is sent to the journal. He or she must respect all those involved in the publication process (associate editors, authors, reviewers, typesetters, readers, etc.) and work with them together to ensure the honesty and integrity of the journal's contents. The editor-in-chief should propose and develop policies and procedures focused on the journal's good academic performance, including an easy transition to the next editorial team.

1.3 Editors shall not misuse their position to artificially influence the variation of the journal in a given rank. In this sense, it would be inappropriate to require authors (both directly and indirectly through evaluators) to add citations and references to papers published in the journal without sufficient academic justification.

 

2. Independence

2.1 Editors should exercise their position in an impartial, confidential, constructive, and sensitive manner, evaluating manuscripts solely for academic quality, regardless of ideological or personal preferences.

2.2 The journal's internal procedures should separate its commercial activities from the editorial decision-making processes, with editors making decisions based solely on academic criteria and merit. In addition, publishers should show an active interest in publication policies, striving to make published material as accessible as possible. However, advertisements and information on the dissemination and/or sale of the journal must be clearly identified and distinguished from academic or research material or content.

2.3 The journal Análisis establishes a process of blind peer review in the articles it publishes. In the case of articles that do not follow this procedure (such as in the case of introductions, editor's notes, recognition of a specific author, etc.) the evaluation process followed should be clearly established, so that readers can clearly identify it, and referenced in the acknowledgements.

 

3. Confidentiality

3.1 Editors must protect the confidentiality of authors' material, and they must remind evaluators to do the same. Editors should not submit or share unpublished manuscripts with other journals unless they obtain express permission from the authors of the material. Nor should they provide information about the status of a manuscript to anyone except the authors or persons responsible for the text.

3.2 Editors should protect the identity of the evaluators, as this is a blind peer review system. However, if evaluators wish to disclose their names, this possibility should be granted.

3.3 Authors have the right to propose or discourage certain specialists in a research area to act as evaluators of their manuscript. However, the decision rests with the editors of the journal and they should not inform the authors of which persons have been selected for the evaluation of the manuscript.

3.4 Editors must choose evaluators for their quality and professional competence. In circumstances that require it, editors may make certain changes to the text of a manuscript before sending it to the author or evaluator. For example, they may delete a phrase that reveals the identity of a manuscript.

3.5 Editors should ensure, where changes in authorship of an article are established for appropriate reasons, that all authors (including those whose names have been removed from the signature) agree to such changes. Publishers are not responsible for disputes or disagreements regarding the authorship of a manuscript, so it is up to the authors to resolve it at the institutional or judicial level. No work will be published without the full agreement of the signatory authors.

3.6 Editors should not allow the publication in the journal of materials that have not been clearly identified, or that are intended to be published without prior review (except those discussed in point 2.4), in order to avoid the emergence of potential conflicts of interest. Editors should also exempt themselves from considering a manuscript or article that presents a potential or actual conflict of interest arising from competitive, collaborative, commercial, employment or personal relationships with any of the authors.

 

4. Honesty

4.1 One of the most important responsibilities of editors is to maintain a high level of quality of academic literature. Editors must therefore work to ensure that all published articles make a substantial new contribution to the relevant field of research (in the case of Análisis, to that of some branch of philosophy). They should thus avoid the publication of duplicates or redundant articles, honestly and sincerely ensuring the publication only of research content and contribution to the thinking of the area they are concerned with.

4.2 Editors should argue with honesty and academic courtesy the editorial explanation of rejection of the article or manuscript. They should do so through a well-written message, which integrates the comments and criticisms of the evaluators and offers suggestions for improvement to the authors.

4.3 Editors should ensure that manuscript evaluation deadlines are met and that evaluators' comments are sent in time for authors to make necessary modifications.

 

5. Promoting academic debate

5.1 The editorial board should facilitate debate and readers' responses to what is published, as well as communicate the most relevant comments and criticisms to the authors. However, editors should distinguish between those criticisms that contribute positively to improving research and those that may lead to research misconduct or establish unfounded and/or malicious criticisms.

5.2 A correction should be published as soon as possible in cases where errors are detected in a published work. Editors have the ability to reject a manuscript if they consider it to be malpractice in research. The decision on the invalidation of an already published work will ultimately rest with the editor-in-chief of the journal, with the advice of the journal's editorial board.

 

[1] This Code follows closely the one Daimon published in 2019. We thank the editors of this magazine for their generosity in giving us permission to use their text to formulate the Analysis. As in the former, we have tried to maintain an inclusive language throughout the text: generic masculine expressions (editors, editor, etc.) should be understood as an option that allows a less cumbersome reading, which in no case intends to exclude people of feminine gender.