Code of conduct

The Editor responsible for the Latin American Journal of Political Philosophy (RLFP), the Center for Philosophical Research, is committed to observing the standards of good practice in academic publishing during all stages of the publication process. Below is a summary of our Code of Conduct for editors, reviewers, and authors, as well as the procedures in case of academic misconduct, in accordance with editorial ethics and malpractice policies. This guide to good editorial practice will be reviewed periodically.

Code of conduct

Responsibility of editors

Editors are to

  • Proceed in an even-handed, objective, and fair manner, performing their duties without discrimination based on gender, sexual orientation, religious or political beliefs, or ethnic or geographic origin of the authors.
  • Treat submissions for special issues or supplements in the same way as regular submissions, so that articles are considered and accepted solely on the basis of their academic merit and without undue influence.
  • Adopt and follow reasonable procedures in case of objections of an ethical or conflictual nature. Provide authors with a reasonable opportunity to respond to any objections. All objections should be investigated, regardless of when the original publication was approved. All documentation associated with any such objections should be retained.

Responsibilities of reviewers

Reviewers are to

  • Contribute to the decision-making process and help improve the quality of the published work by evaluating the manuscript objectively and in a timely manner.
  • Maintain the confidentiality of all information provided by the editors or the author. Do not retain or copy the manuscript.
  • Warn the editors about any published or submitted content that is substantially similar to the work under consideration.
  • Address any potential conflict of interest (financial, institutional, or due to other relationships between author and reviewer) and warn the editors of it, including by refusing to provide their collaboration, if necessary.

Responsibilities of authors

Authors are to

  • Ensure that the submitted manuscript is not being considered or accepted for publication elsewhere. If any of its content overlaps with something already published or submitted, declare and cite that source. In this regard, provide the editors with a copy of any submitted manuscript that may include content that overlaps or is closely related to the submitted work.
  • Ensure that all work in the submitted manuscript is original and declare and cite content reproduced from other sources. If necessary, obtain permission to reproduce any content from another source.
  • Declare any potential conflict of interest that could have an undue influence on your obligations at any stage of the publication process.
  • Immediately notify the RLFP editors if you identify a significant error in your publication. Cooperate with the editors in publishing an errata note, addenda or corrigenda, or withdraw the work when deemed necessary.

Responsibility of the responsible editor

  • The Centro de Investigaciones Filosóficas, through the academic committee, ensures that good editorial practice will be maintained in accordance with the standards mentioned above.

Detection of plagiarism

Submissions must be original and not incur in any type of plagiarism. Before evaluation, the journal checks, through the plagiarism detection software iThenticate, that the work received does not incur in plagiarism. If this practice is detected, the work will be immediately rejected and the collected evidence will be provided to its submitter. The submitter may make any objections that he or she considers appropriate; however, the journal reserves the right to definitively reject the submission after examination and the relevant response to the objections presented.

Procedures for academic misconduct

Identification of unethical behaviour

  • Misconduct or unethical behaviour may be identified and reported to the editors at any time by anyone.
  • Whoever notifies the editors of such conduct must provide sufficient information and evidence to initiate an investigation. All allegations will be taken seriously and treated in the same way, until a satisfactory decision or conclusion is reached.

Inquiry

  • The editors will make an initial decision, which may be consulted or agreed upon with the responsible editor.
  • Necessary evidence should be gathered while maintaining confidentiality and preventing disclosure of the allegations beyond those on a need-to-know basis.

Minor infringements

  • A minor infringement may be resolved without further consultation. In any case, the author should be given the opportunity to respond to any allegation.

Serious Violations

  • A serious violation may require notification to the accused's employers. Editors, with the consensus of the responsible editor, should make the decision whether or not to involve employers, either by examining the available evidence themselves or by consulting with a limited number of experts.

Consequences (in increasing order of severity; may be applied together or separately)

  1. Notification or explanation to the author or reviewer when there appears to be a misunderstanding or misapplication of accepted standards.
  2. A more stern written communication to the author or reviewer, stating the misconduct and warning against future behavior.
  3. Publication of a formal notice detailing the misconduct.
  4. Publication of an editorial detailing the misconduct.
  5. A formal written communication to the author or reviewer's department head or funding agent.
  6. Formal withdrawal of publication from the journal, together with notification to the author's or reviewer's department head, indexing services, and readers of the journal.
  7. Imposition of a formal embargo on an individual's contributions for a defined period.
  8. Reporting the case and its resolution to a professional organization or higher authority for further investigation.