GOOD PRACTICE GUIDELINES FOR PUBLICATIONS

(ADAPTED FROM THE COMMITTEE ON PUBLICATION ETHICS [COPE])

Purpose

These guidelines are intended to guide the editorial work of the Revista Costarricense de Trabajo Social (Costa Rican Journal of Social Work) in accordance with the ethical conduct that professionals and technical staff involved in this process should adopt in carrying out their duties.

1. Study design and ethical approval

Rationale
This guide constitutes a code of conduct addressed to all parties involved in the management and publication of the Revista Costarricense de Trabajo Social: editorial teams, authors, and reviewers of manuscripts.

The Editorial Board of the Journal, together with the Editor-in-Chief/Direction and the technical team, are responsible for the contents published; therefore, they must ensure their quality and originality, as well as manage the editing of submitted works within a reasonable timeframe.

Editorial work must adhere to the following principles:

Impartiality
The Editorial Board must be impartial when handling manuscripts submitted for publication and respect the intellectual independence of authors. Authors must be recognized the right of reply if they have received a negative evaluation.

Conflicts of interest
A conflict arises when authors, reviewers, or editors are subject to particular interests that may influence their judgment on the documents under review—personal, commercial, political, academic, or financial.

To avoid conflicts of interest, the Revista Costarricense de Trabajo Social uses a double-blind peer review system.

When any party involved in the process raises issues related to such interests, the Editorial Board must decide whether the document can be published or should be rejected.

Confidentiality
Members of the Editorial Board are obliged to keep confidential all manuscripts received until they have been accepted for publication. Only then may their title and authorship be disclosed.

No member of the Board nor any external reviewer may use data, arguments, or interpretations contained in unpublished works for their own research, unless there is the authors’ express written consent.

Authors submitting a manuscript may propose up to three specialists to act as reviewers. The Editorial Board reserves the right to accept or reject such proposals and is not obliged to communicate its decision.

Peer review
The Editorial Board must ensure that published works have been evaluated by at least two subject-matter specialists and that the review process has been fair and impartial according to a previously established review guide.

The Editorial Board must guarantee that the review process includes plagiarism detection, verification of originality, checks for redundant publications, and falsified or manipulated data. Sections of the Journal subject to peer review must be clearly indicated.

A reviewer must:

·       Judge the quality of the work objectively.

·       Consider theoretical grounding, data, and relevant information.

·       Pay attention to presentation and writing.

·       Be concise, precise, and objective.

·       Properly justify their judgments, avoid hostile stances, and respect the intellectual independence of the author(s).

·       Alert the Editor to any substantial similarity between the manuscript under review and another article already published or under consideration elsewhere (redundant or duplicate publication).

·       Flag plagiarized, falsified, altered, or manipulated texts or data.

Originality and plagiarism

·       Authors must ensure that the data and results reported are original and have not been copied, falsified, distorted, or manipulated.

·       Plagiarism in all its forms, multiple or redundant publication, and the alteration or manipulation of data are serious ethical breaches and are considered fraudulent conduct.

·       Authors must refrain from submitting to the Journal manuscripts that are simultaneously under consideration by another journal; likewise, they will not submit elsewhere while their manuscript is under consideration here unless they have received a rejection or have voluntarily withdrawn it.

·       It is acceptable to publish a work that substantially extends a previously published short note or communication, provided the original text is properly cited and the changes represent substantial developments.

Publication standards

·       Authors must properly acknowledge the source of ideas or verbatim phrases from previously published works, according to the Journal’s editorial standards.

·       When images are included, their source must be clearly indicated. If graphical material (figures, photos, maps, etc.) is incorporated, the cited source must be the original (second-hand citations are not accepted). When necessary, authors must provide the pertinent reproduction permissions.

·       Authors must assume full or partial responsibility for the manuscript they wish to publish.

·       Authorship presupposes intellectual contributions to the conception, analysis, and writing of the text, as well as to data collection. Authorship is attributed to an individual only when they can answer for a specific contribution to the work.

·       To avoid conflicts of interest, the names of all persons who participated in writing the document must be included, which entails public responsibility for the content.

Sources of information

·       All sources used must be acknowledged; they must be identified and cited in the references and bibliography.

·       The author must mention information obtained privately through conversations, correspondence, or discussions with colleagues in the field.

·       Authors should ensure that the sources consulted meet the quality and rigor required for scientific and professional documents.

·       The use of unreliable internet sites is not accepted.

2. Authorship

Definition
There is no universally accepted definition of authorship, although various attempts have been made to delineate it. At a minimum, authors must assume responsibility for some section of the study they wish to publish.

Action

·       Authorship should reflect intellectual contributions to the conception, design, analysis, and writing of the study, as well as to data collection and other routine tasks. If a specific task cannot be attributed to an individual, that person should not be listed as an author.

·       To avoid disputes over credit, it is advisable to decide at an early stage who will be authors, who will be collaborators, and who will be acknowledged.

·       All authors must publicly assume responsibility for the content of the document. The multidisciplinary nature of many works may make this difficult; however, it can be resolved by making individual contributions explicit.

·       Authors must ensure that their name is not used to lend credibility to a manuscript presented to the Editorial Board.

3. Conflicts of interest

Definition
Conflicts of interest arise when authors, reviewers, or editors have particular interests that have not been disclosed and that influence the decision to accept or reject a manuscript.

These interests have been described as those which, once revealed, would make a reader feel deceived or misled. Their nature may be personal, commercial, political, academic, or financial. Financial interests can include: employment, research funding, equity holdings or ownership, paid talks or travel, consultancies, and in-kind support.

Action

·       When pertinent, researchers, authors, and reviewers must disclose their interests to the editors.

·       Editors must inform readers of the existence of a conflict of interest.

·       Editors must disclose their own conflicts of interest and those of their team, editorial boards, managers, and owners.

·       In some cases, conflicts of interest may be so severe that they hinder publication or require excluding certain individuals (e.g., reviewers or editors) from decisions regarding the manuscript.

4. Peer review (Arbitration)

Definition
Reviewers are external experts chosen by the editors to provide written opinions on a manuscript, essay, etc. Although procedures vary by journal, this Journal uses a double-blind review system.

Action

·       Authors may suggest reviewers, but the editor is not obligated to accept the suggestion.

·       Expert reviewers must maintain confidentiality of the manuscript under review; this also applies to colleagues of the reviewers who (with the editor’s permission) may be asked for opinions on specific sections.

·       The manuscript received must not be copied or retained.

·       Neither reviewers nor editors may use data, arguments, or interpretations from a manuscript under consideration, unless authorized by the authors.

·       Reviewers must issue accurate, courteous, objective, and well-founded reports.

·       If reviewers suspect misconduct, they must confidentially inform the editor.

·       The Journal must publish accurate descriptions of its peer-review, selection, and reply processes.

·       The Journal will conduct regular audits of its acceptance rates and publication timelines.

5. Redundant publication

Definition
Redundant publication occurs when two or more documents, without full cross-referencing, share the same data, hypotheses, points of discussion, or conclusions.

Action

·       A published study should not be repeated unless further confirmation is required.

·       Prior publication of an abstract as part of conference proceedings does not prevent subsequent submission of a full article on the same topics; however, this must be explicitly disclosed at submission.

·       Republishing a document in another language is acceptable provided its original source is explicitly indicated at submission.

·       When submitting a manuscript, authors must indicate the existence of related texts—even in another language—or similar documents under consideration elsewhere.

6. Plagiarism

Definition
Failure to acknowledge the use of others’ ideas, whether published or unpublished, may be considered plagiarism—so is presenting a document in a “new” authorship, even if rendered in another language. Plagiarism may occur at any stage—planning, research, writing, or publication—and applies to both print and electronic versions.

Action
All sources must be properly cited; when large amounts of text or illustrations created by others are used, permission must be obtained to publish such material.

7. Responsibilities of editors

Definition
Editors are the guardians of journals. Most editors lead the journal and build a solid administrative team. They must consider and balance the interests of many stakeholders: readers, authors, staff, owners, Editorial Board members, sponsors, and the media.

Action

·       The decision to accept or reject a manuscript must be based solely on its importance, originality, and clarity, and on the relevance of the study to the Journal’s scope.

·       Studies that question or contradict previously published works in the Journal will be carefully reviewed.

·       Studies reporting negative results must not be excluded.

·       All original studies will undergo peer review prior to publication. Biases relating to connected or conflicting interests will be avoided.

·       Editors must maintain strict confidentiality over all manuscripts received.

·       When a serious error is detected in a published article, editors must correct it promptly and conspicuously.

·       When misconduct is suspected, editors must immediately contact the authors; if the work is institutionally sponsored, editors will subsequently contact the institution’s representatives.

8. Relations with the media

Definition
Findings from research are increasingly attractive to the press and other mass media. Journalists may attend meetings where preliminary results are presented, which can lead to premature publication of findings in mass media.

Action

·       Authors approached by the media should succinctly communicate their results and make clear where evidence ends and speculation begins.

·       Simultaneous publication in the media and in a peer-reviewed journal is recommended, as this usually indicates sufficient evidence and information to satisfy critical, well-informed readers.

·       When simultaneous publication is not possible, authors should cooperate with journalists to produce accurate reports; however, it is advisable to refrain from providing additional data.

·       Organizers of meetings in which authors present should inform them in advance of journalists’ presence.

·       Authors should be aware of any media policies in effect at the journal where they intend to publish.

9. How to handle misconduct

Principles

·       The general principle that confirms misconduct is the intent to make others believe something that is not true; therefore, the examination of misconduct should focus not only on the act or omission itself, but also on the intention of the researcher, author, editor, reviewer, or publisher involved.

·       Deception may be intentional, the result of indifference to consequences, or due to negligence. Best practice requires complete honesty and transparency.

·       Procedural codes can raise awareness but will never be exhaustive.

Investigation of misconduct

·       Editors must not reject manuscripts that raise the possibility of misconduct; they have an ethical obligation to investigate. However, investigating and responding to possible misconduct can be difficult.

·       The editor will decide how the matter will be resolved.

Serious misconduct

·       Editors must take all allegations and suspicions of serious misconduct seriously, but must recognize that they generally lack the legal authority and means to conduct investigations in serious cases.

·       Editors must decide when to inform employers about the conduct of accused authors.

·       Some form of evidence is required; if employers have procedures for investigating allegations—and increasingly they are expected to—editors need not build a complete case. From an ethical standpoint, it may be unwise for editors to do so, as it usually involves consulting experts, which can spread serious doubts about the authors.

·       If editors receive solid evidence—possibly from reviewers—of serious misconduct, they must immediately inform the employers and notify the authors of this action.

·       If allegations are not supported by convincing evidence, editors should confidentially consult an expert.

·       If the expert(s) express serious concern about the research, editors must notify the employers.

·       If experts find no evidence of misconduct, the editorial process should continue as normal.

·       If there is no body with the authority and means to conduct an investigation, the editor may decide whether the case warrants publication of a notice in the journal; legal advice is essential in such cases.

·       If editors are convinced that employers have not conducted an adequate investigation of a serious allegation, they may consider publishing a notice about the case; legal advice is essential.

·       Authors must be given the opportunity to respond to allegations of serious misconduct.

Minor misconduct

·       Editors may deem it unnecessary to involve employers in cases of minor misconduct, such as redundant publication, misrepresentation of authorship, or failure to disclose a conflict of interest. Sometimes the evidence speaks for itself, though it is prudent to assign the case to an independent expert for determination.

·       Editors must bear in mind that any allegation of misconduct, even minor, may have serious repercussions for authors; employers may need to be asked to investigate.

·       Authors must be given the opportunity to respond to any allegation of minor misconduct.

·       If the editor is convinced that an ethical breach has occurred, they may choose to apply one or more of the sanctions below.

Sanctions (which may be applied jointly or separately, ordered roughly by severity)

·       A letter of clarification (and education) to the authors when there appears to be a genuine misunderstanding of principles.

·       A letter of reprimand and warning regarding future conduct.

·       A formal letter to the head of the relevant institution or funding body.

·       Publication of a notice regarding redundant publication or plagiarism.

·       An editorial with detailed information about the misconduct.

·       Refusal to consider future submissions from the individual, unit, or institution responsible for a defined period.

·       Formal retraction or withdrawal of the article in question, informing other editors and indexing authorities.