Ethics Code

THE CODE OF ETHICS OF Clio. History and History teaching is inspired by that of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), addressed to editors, reviewers and authors.

Commitments of the authors

By submitting their manuscripts to Clio, authors guarantee that the work is original, that it does not contain parts of other authors' or other published works, the data contained in the text are accurate and that no empirical data have been altered to verify hypotheses. They also guarantee that the text has not been repeated or sent to several journals simultaneously.
They also declare that they own the rights to all the contents of the manuscript for publication (including the rights to images and other graphic contents) and that all references, contributions from other authors and sources are properly cited. Furthermore, the authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest that could have influenced the results obtained or the interpretations proposed.
The submitting authors guarantee the inclusion of those persons who have made a significant scientific and intellectual contribution to the conceptualization and planning of the work as well as to the interpretation of the results and the writing of the paper. All authors are listed in hierarchical order according to their level of responsibility and involvement or in alphabetical order by first surname in the case of equal co-responsibility. All authors accept responsibility for what has been written and are jointly responsible for respecting copyright and reproduction rights of previous works that may have been used or referenced in their work, assuming any liability that may arise from non-compliance with current legislation.
For the purposes of publication and subsequent management of the papers, the authors transfer their rights to the editors for possible inclusion in databases or repertoires of scientific publications. Their authorship and the inalterability of the published text will be both guaranteed.
Authors should indicate in the text any agency and/or project funding used for the research article.
When an author identifies an important error or inaccuracy in their article, they should immediately inform the editors of the journal and provide them with all the relevant  information to make the necessary corrections (which, unless they are merely typos, will be listed as a note at the end of the article, indicating the date of the incorporation)

Peer reviewers/evaluators
Peer review is a procedure that helps editors  make decisions on proposed articles and also allows the author to improve the contribution submitted for publication. The reviewers commit to carrying out a critical, honest, constructive and unbiased review of both the scientific quality and the writing quality of the paper.
They agree  to evaluate the papers within the period established by the editors using the Clio protocol and public standards provided to them and which can be found on the journal's website. The usual period is a maximum of one month from revision´s acceptance. In case of suggesting modifications prior to publication, the reviewer may receive a second version of the article and will have a period of fifteen days to check if the modifications have been correctly made by the authors.
If a reviewer does not feel competent, does not have the time needed to evaluate the work submitted by the editors or has a conflict of interest for whatever reason, he/she must inform them immediately so that another reviewer can be assigned.
The review shall be conducted in an objective manner, providing sufficient reasons for the assessments. Reviewers should immediately notify the editors if they observe that significant parts of the manuscript are already published, there is an overlap with other published scientific work or if they know that it is under review for another publication. Each assigned manuscript should be considered confidential, so that its evaluation should not be discussed with third parties, except with the express consent of the editors. All communication between editors and reviewers during the manuscript evaluation process is also confidential.

Commitments of the editors
The editors will guarantee the selection of qualified and scientifically specialised reviewers to issue a critical and expert appraisal of the work and as less biased as possible. At least two reviewers will work in each article, and one of them may belong to the scientific advisory committee.
The editors evaluate articles submitted for publication only on the basis of the scientific merit of the contents, without discrimination of race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, ethnic origin, nationality or political opinion of the authors.
The editors and members of the scientific advisory board agree not to disclose information about articles submitted for publication to anyone other than authors, reviewers and editors, so that anonymity preserves the intellectual integrity of the entire process. The editors undertake not to use the contents of articles received but not yet published in their research or professional activities without the written consent of the author.
Long waiting times will be avoided in the publication of papers. To this end, the editors agree to publish in the current year's issue all manuscripts that have been received by June 30 of each year and accepted for publication without modification by two reviewers

In October-November, authors will be notified of acceptance, and a certificate of acceptance for publication may be issued at the request of the interested parties. Likewise, in October, the editors will inform the authors of articles that require modifications prior to publication about the necessary changes. If these are made within one month and the reviewers confirm within 15 days that the work is already publishable, it will also be incorporated into the current year's issue. This ensures rapid dissemination of the papers: June 30 deadline for receipt, 90 days for review process (contact with reviewers, acceptance of review, sending manuscript to reviewers, receipt of review by editors), 30 days to communicate acceptance, rejection or suggestions for modifications.
The editors are not responsible for the accuracy of the information and opinions expressed by the authors of the contents and contributors to the website, nor do they necessarily share their opinions and interpretations.

In the event that a journal's publisher or editors are made aware of any allegation of research misconduct, they will deal with allegations appropriately. Publishers and editors should publish corrections, clarifications, retractions and apologies when needed.