Ethical principles of publication

Revista Cuidarte encourages good practices based on ethical standards of publication among all collaborators, following the recommendations of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), Publication Ethical Guidelines of Academy Publisher and Elsevier. Therefore, we promote the utmost rigor in the course of evaluation and publication process; we follow the fundamentals of exemplary ethical behavior of all parties involved in the publication process: author, journal editor, reviewer and publisher. In Revista Cuidarte, all submitted articles are evaluated and published based on their merits and scientific contribution, ensuring that the most appropriate practices are followed in each step of the publication process. Revista Cuidarte reviews manuscripts to detect plagiarism using the iThenticate Plagiarism Detection Software.  In addition, each article is subjected to review for publication must complete Declaration of Originality and Authorship Format, Format of Ethical Principles for Publication and  meet the following requirements:

  • Consent: All authors give their consent to the submission and publication of the article under evaluation.
  • Authors’ contribution: All authors have contributed to the article without the omission of any author, indicating the contribution of each author.
  • Work Originality: The article submitted for review is an original one, has not been previously published and has not been simultaneously submitted to another journal for evaluation purposes.
  • Consent to reproduce a work: The article does not include original material copied from other authors without their consent. If the article contains other authors’ material, their consent for printed and electronic reproduction must be clearly indicated.
  • Previous researches: All included information in the article under review coming from previous studies has been referenced. If the above-mentioned article is an analysis of a previously published proposal, it must be always cited.
  • Journal Archives: The article under review will be kept in the Revista Cuidarte archives and it will be considered a valid publication as long as it meets each of the above criteria.
  • Review Committee: The members of the Review Committee have no employment, academic, or personal relationship with the authors.

To access the entire Ethical Principles document. here   

1.  BIOETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS

  • Institutional Authorization: In studies where institutional authorization is required, researchers must provide information on the approval of their work proposals, with the corresponding authorization from the institution before the start of the study. The research must be ruled by the protocol authorized by the institution.
  • Informed Consent: Researchers must explicitly state whether they have a written consent of the participants involved in the research.
  • For research: The consent must inform the participant about the following: (1) purpose of the research, procedures, as well as expected duration; (2) their right to decline to participate in the research and to be able to withdraw even after application has begun; (3) the possible consequences of declining to participate or withdraw from the research; (4) foreseeable factors that may affect their willingness to participate, such as potential risks, discomfort, or adverse effects; (5) possible benefits and incentives of their participation in the research; (6) limits of confidentiality; and (7) contact information of those responsible for the study who can answer questions about the research and the rights of study participants. Participants must be given the opportunity to ask questions before giving their consent. When conducting studies involving the use of experimental treatments, researchers must inform participants at the beginning of the research about: (1) experimental nature of the treatment; (2) services that will or will not be available to participants assigned to the control group, if any; (3) means by which designations of interventions will be made to both groups (control and experimental); (4) alternative treatments available if a participant does not agree to participate in the study or wishes to withdraw after implementation has begun; and (5) compensation for participation. 
  • For voice recording and use of images in Research:  Researchers must obtain the informed consent of participants before recording their voices or using their images for the collection of their data unless: (1) the research only consists of naturalistic observations in public spaces, and it is not possible for the recording to be used in a way that could harm or identify individuals; or (2) the study design involves deception as a methodological strategy and, therefore, consent for using recordings is obtained during the debriefing session. 
  • When informed consent for research can be dispensed with: Researchers may dispense with informed consent only when:  Reasonably, it would not be feasible for the research to cause discomfort or harm, and involves: the study of current educational practices, curriculum, or in-class supervision methods applied in educational environments; the exclusive use of anonymous questionnaires, field observations, or archival studies for which the significance of the responses would not place the participants at risk of civil or criminal liability or any other type of harm; the study of factors relating to the work or effectiveness of the organization conducted in an organizational level, where there is no risk that employability of the participants would be affected. Or when legally authorized or by institutional regulations or standards. 
  • Client/patient, students, and subordinate research participants:  When researchers conduct studies with clients/patients, students, or subordinates as participants, they should take precautions to defend potential participants from the consequences of declining or withdrawing their participation. Moreover, where participation in research is a course requirement or involves the possibility of obtaining additional credits, participants must be given a choice of equivalent alternatives. 
  • Offering incentives for participation in the study:  Researchers must make every relevant effort to avoid offering excessive or inadequate incentives, financial or other types, for participation in studies where such incentives might influence their participation.  When professional services are offered as an incentive for participation, researchers must clarify the nature of services as well as risks, limitations and obligations. 
  • Deception in research. Researchers must only use deception when it is justified by the expected scientific, educational or practical value, and the use of non-deceptive techniques is not possible.  Researchers must not use misleading instructions if the research could cause physical pain or severe emotional Distress.  Researchers must only use deception when it is justified by the expected scientific, educational or practical value, and the use of non-deceptive techniques is not possible.  Researchers must not use misleading instructions if the research could cause physical pain or severe emotional distress. 
  • Closure of Research (Debriefing): Researchers must offer participants the opportunity to obtain proper information about nature, results and conclusions of the study, taking necessary measures to avoid misunderstandings. If the scientific or humanitarian value of the research justifies delaying or withholding information, researchers must seek to reduce the risk of harm.. When researchers become aware that procedures used in the research have harmed a participant, they must implement the necessary measures to minimize harm. 

2.   ETHICAL PRINCIPLES IN SCIENTIFIC ARTICLES

  • Human rights, privacy and confidentiality: When necessary, authors must specify that they adhere to recognized standards, in order to minimize possible harm to participants, avoiding coercion or exploitation, and protecting confidentiality under the Declaration of Helsinki, the Good Clinical Practices Guidances by the International Conference on Harmonization and the International Ethical Guidelines for the Biomedical Research Involving Human Subjects issued by the Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences in cooperation with the World Health Organization. In addition, it is recommended the author(s) to check: The Scientific, Technical, and Administrative Regulations for Health-Related Research, Resolution 008430 of the 4th of October 1993 issued by the Ministry of Health Care of the Republic of Colombia. Moreover, when appropriate, researchers must openly communicate any information that may influence the will of the participant, such as sponsorship, purpose of the study, expected results, and possible consequences of publication of the research.
  • Culture and heritage: Authors must not include any images of objects that may have cultural significance or that may be interpreted as offensive, such as religious texts or historical events. Furthermore, researchers must also be careful not to include names or photographs of deceased persons when this is contraindicated in the culture..
  • Registration of clinical trials: Clinical trials must be registered in a publicly accessible database before participants are registered, as agreed by the World Health Organization and the Declaration of Helsinki. Clinical trial registration numbers must be provided at the end of the abstract http://clinicaltrials.gov/.. If the clinical trial has not been registered, or it was registered retrospectively, an explanation must be provided.
  • Animal research: Research involving animals must adhere to the following standards: Replacement: use of alternative methods to animal involvement; reduction: methods that reduce the number of animals to be used; and refinement: methods that improve animal welfare. Authors must report the study design, statistical analyses, applied experimental procedures and experimental animals used, as well as steps followed in animal experimentation, characteristics of animal housing and breeding techniques employed. In addition, researchers must report how discomfort and pain were avoided and minimized and confirm that animals did not experience any unnecessary suffering during the study.  Evidence of ethical and legal approval obtained by the institution endorsing the research must be included in the manuscript. Authors must state whether the experiments were conducted under national and institutional ethical standards and regulations. Researchers from U.S. institutions must adhere to US National Research Council’s Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals, the US Public Health Service’s Policy on Human Care and Use of Laboratory Animals, and US Public Health Service’s Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals. Researchers from British institutions must adhere to the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 Amendment Regulations (S1 2012/3039). European authors must cite Directive 2010/63/EU
  • Biosecurity: Authors must indicate if the study is considered as a dual use research, which would imply that the results of such research have a potential for its application that may be benevolent or malevolent. Thus, researchers must align to the guidelines for Dual Use in Life Sciences Research set forth by the National Science Advisory Board for Biosecurity (NSABB). 
  • Report format: Los investigadores deben seguir la última edición del formato editorial APA para informar con precisión los resultados del estudio, permitiendo a los lectores valorarlos, replicarlos y utilizarlos.
  • 2.1. REPORT OF RESEARCH RESULTS: Researchers must not invent false data. If researchers discover significant errors in published data, measures must be taken in order to publicly correct those errors.
  • 2.2. RESEARCH INTEGRITY. a) Misconduct: Research misconduct refers to fabricating, falsification, or plagiarism at the time the research is proposed, conducted, or reviewed, or when the results of the research are reported. If the editorial board suspects misconduct, it will request an investigation of the misconduct from the institution supporting the research, the employer, sponsor, or competent national organization. b) Formal complaints about irregularities: Formal complaint of irregularities in the research, made by identified persons or anonymously, will be investigated only if accompanied by respective evidence.. c) Image fabrication/falsification and manipulation: Sometimes it is necessary editing images to reveal certain characteristics; however, inappropriate image manipulation creates misleading results. Researchers must report this when editing images. They must also be governed by the following recommendations: Specific features must not be altered. Original unpublished images must also be submitted when any modification is made to the image intended to be published. Adjustments to brightness or contrast may only be used when they apply equally to the entire image and do not distort the sense of the image. Excessive editing to emphasize an image size is not appropriate. If any part of a recording or non-linear adjustments is deleted, it must be specified in the figure legend. Figures must not be built from different components. However, if the author deems it necessary, then it should be clearly indicated by dividing lines in figure and legend. d) Plagiarism: Plagiarism is copying or misuse of another person’s intellectual property. Researchers must not present parts of others’ works or data as their own. The Revista Cuidarte reviews manuscripts in order to detect plagiarism. e) Duplicated and redundant data publication: Researchers shall avoid publishing data that have been previously published as the original. This does not prevent from reissuing or republishing data as long as they are accompanied by appropriate recognition. The following previous publications are not considered as duplicated publications: abstracts and posters shown at conferences, results presented at scientific meetings, results in databases and clinical trial registries that have not been interpreted, as well as dissertations and theses in university archives. f) Text Recycling: Partial results from a previous publication targeted to a different audience are permitted when discussion and conclusion are different.  g) Double submission: Authors cannot submit a manuscript to more than one journal simultaneously. If the Editorial Board becomes aware of such a situation, the manuscript will not be deemed for publication. h) Duplicating information published in other languages: Translations of already published manuscripts will not be deemed to be published.  i) Sanctions: Sanctions are coherently after careful consideration. First, a retraction will be issued. In the most serious circumstances, the institution from which the author(s) comes will be notified, and the Journal will refuse to examine future work of the involved author(s).
  • 2.3 EDITORIAL STANDARDS AND PROCESSES a a)  Authorship: List of authors and sequential order of the authors must appropriately reflect the scientific or professional contributions of involved researchers. All manuscript authors must sign an authorization form, indicating their level of participation in the study. Moreover, additional contributions that do not meet the authorship criteria must be listed in an acknowledgments section with the authors’ permission. All administrative requirements must be met (Institutional Ethics Committee Approval Letter and Registration of Clinical Documentation.) Any communication must be copied to all authors who contributed to the article.   . Who is an author?   *Someone that has contributed substantially to the design of the article or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data. *Someone that has participated in drafting the research or critically revising its intellectual content. * Someone that has taken part in the approval of the final version to be published. *Someone that has the criteria to answer and support each of the scientific aspects of the article and the research.  Authors must be responsible for determining that all persons listed as authors meet the four criteria for authorship. In the event that a removal or addition of an author is requested after the manuscript submission or publication, the journal editors will request an explanation and a statement of agreement to be signed for the requested change from all authors already mentioned, including the author who is intended to be removed or added. In the case of contributors who are not authors, they must provide written permission for their names to appear in the publication. Their contributions must be specified (e.g., as scientific advisors, critical reviewers of the study proposal, data collection, contribution to provide participants or assist patients included in the study, participation in the writing of the article or its technical editing.) b) Authorship disputes: If the Editorial Board suspects authorship issues, the corresponding author will be contacted to provide further information. If more information is required, other authors will be contacted.. c) Funding: All funding sources, as well as their specific roles, must be listed in the acknowledgments section. If there is not a source of funding available, this must be explicitly stated. Other sources of funding, such as editorial assistance, must be also specified.  .  d) Peer Review: The Journal uses a double-blind peer review for articles. Only the editorial letter section does not undergo a peer review. All submitted articles are treated as confidential in all cases. Thus, peer reviewers must disclose any conflict of interest when responding to an invitation to review a manuscript, as well as when submitting the results of the manuscript review. In cases when there is a conflict of interest such as the reviewer has recently collaborated with the author in the same institution or is in direct competition with the author, then reviewers will not be able to review the manuscript of such author e) Timeliness: the Revista Cuidarte strives to ensure a timely peer review, avoiding unnecessary delays in the publication process.  f) Journal editor and staff as authors: The Editor, the members of the Editorial Board and the Advisory Board are not involved in any decision related to their own articles that have been submitted to the Journal. Accordingly, a brief statement will be provided detailing the process that will be used to make the editorial decision when the editor or members of the Editorial Board or Advisory Board are authors of a publication. g) Conflict of interests: Editors, authors, and reviewers must disclose any conflict of interest that might affect their capacity to objectively submit or review a manuscript. Conflicts of interest include, but not limited to, financial, personal, political or religious interest. Authors must describe the relevant funding, including the purposes of such funding, as well as the corresponding patents, shares and participations they hold. h) Libel and defamation: The Advisory Board oversees manuscripts and peer-review reports to identify expressions that may be considered as defamatory or negligent misrepresented, which may lead to legal action. Such language must not be used. Therefore, the author of such expressions will assume all responsibility.  i) Editorial independence and commercial issues: The Universidad de Santander - UDES oversees the funding and editing the Revista Cuidarte. However, this does not imply that editorial decisions are influenced by this institution in any way.  j) Academic Debate: Revista Cuidarte encourages correspondence and a constructive criticism of published works. When a correspondence article discusses a specific article, the author will be invited to respond before publishing the correspondence. Whenever possible, correspondence and author’s response will be published together. Authors may indicate if they consider correspondence to be constructive, but they are not entitled to veto comments.  k) Appeals: Authors who do not agree with the editorial feedback are able to submit an appeal letter against the decision made by the Editorial Board. Appeals will override earlier decisions only when new information becomes available, so decisions cannot be reversed without new evidence. The Editorial Board may use comments from the additional reviewers to decide. l) Corrections: Readers and authors must notify to Revista Cuidarte in case of errors in a publication, especially those that might affect data interpretation. Corrections will be published and, when significant errors that might invalidate the work are found, consideration will be given to publishing a retraction.  m) Retractions and expressions of concern: Retractions are published when reported errors may affect data interpretation, as well as when the submitted information in the work is fraudulent, or in cases of serious ethical misconduct. Expressions of concern will be published when there are serious concerns or suspicions that must be notified to readers. n) Withdrawal of articles: Removal, deletion or concealment of an article is only allowed when there is a case involving legal infringements, defamation, or other limitations of legal nature, as well as when there are false or inaccurate data. In such cases, a withdrawal statement will be published. o) Data Protection Regulation: Revista Cuidarte complies with the data protection regulation. 
  • 2.4. COPYRIGHT AND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY. a. The author must sign a copyright agreement before the publication. b. Intellectual property protection. Exclusive License Agreement: the original author holds the copyrights on his or her article, but the Revista Cuidarte reserves the commercial publication rights as well as the rights to publish article compilations.
  • 2.5. DATA SOCIALIZATION FOR ITS VERIFICATION.   Researchers should share their database with other competent professionals that are interested in verifying their results after publication. Provided data will maintain the confidentiality of participants and will protect the legal rights of authorship with respect to the study. Authors are able to request costs coverage to provide the information. When researchers are asked to share their data for re-analysis, this data will be used only for the stated purpose. Researchers must receive a written agreement from authors for the use of data for any other purpose.
  • 2.6. PEER REVIEWERS. Researchers that review the submitted material for presentations, publications, research proposals, or grants must respect confidentiality and property rights of those who have submitted the information.
  • 2.7. DATA STORAGE AND DOCUMENTATION.  Revista Cuidarte encourages authors to share the data and other artefacts supporting the results in the paper by archiving it in an appropriate public repository. Authors should include a data accessibility statement, including a link to the repository they have used, in order that this statement can be published alongside their paper.  Authors can consult the global registry of research data repositories re3data.orrg   to help them identify registered and certified repositories relevant to their subject areas. Data Citation In recognition of the significance of data as an output of research effort, Revista Cuidarte has endorsed the FORCE11 Data Citation Principles and is implementing a mandatory data citation policy.  Journal policies should require data to be cited in the same way as article, book, and web citations and authors are required to include data citations as part of their reference list. Data citation is appropriate for data held within institutional, subject focused, or more general data repositories. It is not intended to take the place of community standards such as in-line citation of GenBank accession codes. When citing or making claims based on data, authors must refer to the data at the relevant place in the manuscript text and in addition provide a formal citation in the reference list. We recommend the format proposed by the Joint Declaration of Data Citation Principles  Authors; Dataset title; Data repository or archive; Year; Version (if any); Persistent identifier (e.g. DOI). 

3.   AUTHORS OBLIGATIONS

  • Information sources. Authors of empirical articles must submit procedures and calculations used in articles. All data must be explicitly stated in the article along with its details and sources to ensure the possibility of replication in future researches. Inaccurate or fraudulent calculations provided in research articles are considered a violation of the code of ethics as it is not an acceptable practice in scientific journals..
  • Originality and plagiarism. Authors, collaborators and information sources used in the preparation of research articles must be properly cited. Plagiarism is manifested in a wide variety of forms such as the use of another author’s articles as one’s own articles, intentional or unintentional reproduction, paraphrasing parts of another author’s article without citation or reference of results of the research carried out by others. Plagiarism is an unethical behavior and its publication is unacceptable
  • Redundant or concurrent publication. In general, authors must not publish manuscripts that essentially describe the same research in more than one journal or primary publication. Submission of the same manuscript to more than one journal at the same time constitutes unethical behavior and its publication is unacceptable. Authors must not submit a previously published article for consideration in another journal.
  • Recognition of sources. Adequate recognition of others work must be always given. Authors must cite publications that have been influential in the preparation of the article. Information obtained in confidence, such as in conversations, correspondence, or discussion with third parties, must not be used unless prior written permission has been requested to the appropriate source. Information obtained in confidence, such as arbitration manuscripts or grant applications, must not be used without explicit written permission by the work author
  • Document authorship. Authorship must be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution or interpretation of the research. All those who have made significant contributions must appear as co-authors. If there are others who have participated in certain substantive aspects of the research project, they must appear in the acknowledgments section or be listed as collaborators. The lead author must ensure that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the document and have agreed to its submission for Publication
  • Disclosure and conflicts of interest.  All authors must notify in their manuscript any financial or other conflicts of interest that might influence the results or interpretation of their manuscript. All financial sources of the project must be included. Examples of possible conflicts of interest to be named: employment, consultancy, ownership of shares, fees, paid expert testimony, patents/registrations applications and grants or other funding. Potential conflicts of interest must be disclosed at the earliest possible stage and must be communicated to the journal editor in a cover letter when submitting the manuscript for evaluation.
  • Similarity analysis.  The Cuidarte Journal reviews the manuscripts for plagiarism using the iThenticate tool: Plagiarism Detection Software and the respective referencing is reviewed.
  • Significant errors in published works. When an author finds out a significant error or inaccuracy in his or her own published work, it is the author’s obligation to immediately notify to the journal editor or editorial board and cooperate with the editor to retract or correct the article as soon as possible. If the editor or editorial board finds out by a third party that a published work contains a significant error, it is the author’s obligation to retract as soon as possible, correct the article or provide evidence to the editor of the original document correction.
  • Transparency in clinical trials. The journal expects authors to comply with the best industry standards in the registration and submission of clinical trials, e.g., CONSORT guidelines, as set forth in the guidelines for authors.

4.   EDITORS OBLIGATIONS

  • Publication decision. The editor of a journal with a blind peer review is responsible for deciding which articles submitted to the journal will be published. Validation of the work and its importance for the scientific community must always prevail for such decisions. The editor may be guided by the Editorial Board policies of the Journal and limited by the legal requirements regarding defamation, copyright infringement and plagiarism. Editor’s decisions are based on the evaluation reports of the manuscripts made by the reviewers or members of the editorial board.
  • Fair Play.  The editor must evaluate manuscripts based on their scientific content without as to author’s race, gender, sexual orientation, religious beliefs, ethnic origin, nationality or politic tendency. A doubleblind evaluation system will be used to avoid any bias in the manuscript evaluation process. In this type of review, reviewers do not know the author’s personal and professional identity, just as authors do not know the reviewer’s identity.
  • Confidentiality. The editor and any member of the editorial board must not reveal to anyone any information about a manuscript submitted to the journal other than authors, subject editors assigned by the editor, potential reviewers, reviewers, or other editorial advisors.
  • Disclosure and conflicts of interest.  Unpublished material provided in a manuscript that has been submitted to the journal must not be used for an editor’s own research without the author’s written consent. Privileged information or ideas obtained from peer review must be kept as confidential and not be used for personal benefit. Editors must refuse (i.e., ask a co-editor, associate editor, or member of the Editorial Board to review a manuscript rather than review it by themselves) to review/edit manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest, resulting from competitive, collaborative, or any other kind of relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or (possible) institutions connected to such articles Editors must require all contributors to disclose any conflict of interest and publish corrections if any conflict of interest is found out after publication. If necessary, other appropriate measures, such as the publication of a retraction, must be taken. It must be ensured that the blind peer review process for sponsored journal supplements is the same as the one used for the main journal. Articles in sponsored supplements must be accepted only on the basis of academic merit and readers’ interest and not be influenced by any commercial considerations.
  • Educating on editorial ethics.  Providing education and advice on the publication of ethical standards, in particular for early career researchers.
  • Peer review. Ensuring that the peer review process is fair, impartial and timely. In general, research articles must be reviewed by at least two external and independent reviewers, and if necessary, the editor must seek additional opinions. The editor will select reviewers who have proper experience in the relevant field and must follow best practices to avoid the selection of fraudulent reviewers. The editor will review all disclosures of potential conflicts of interest and suggestions for self-referral made by reviewers to determine if there is any potential bias or not.
  • Monitoring published records.  The editor must work to safeguard the integrity of the published record integrity by reviewing and evaluating reported or suspected misconduct (research, publication, review, and editorial), with the Editorial Board. Generally, such measures will include contacting the author of the manuscript or document and give due consideration to the respective complaint(s) but might also include additional communications to relevant research institutions and organizations. The editor should make proper use of editor’s systems for detecting misconduct, such as plagiarism. An editor with convincing evidence of misconduct must coordinate with the editor (and/or society) to arrange the immediate publication of a correction, retraction, expression of concern, or any other correction in the record, as appropriate. 

5.   REVIEWERS OBLIGATIONS

  • Contributions to editorial decisions. Blind peer review assists the editor in making editorial decisions. Communication with authors through the editor or editorial board may also help authors improving his or her article. Blind peer review is the system used in formal academic communication, essential in the scientific method.
  • Timeliness.  When a reviewer assigned to a review considers that he or she is not sufficiently qualified to conduct such review or knows that will not be able to review it in a proper period of time, or that it will not be possible to do it, this must be notified to the editor and excuse himself/herself from the review process.
  • Confidentiality. Any manuscript received for its review must be treated as a confidential document. It must not be given or discussed with others, except those authorized by the editor.
  • Objectivity standards. Reviews must be conducted in an objective manner. Personal criticism of the author is inadequate. Reviewers must express their viewpoints in a clear and well-reasoned manner with support material, if required.
  • Recognizing sources.  Reviewers must detect if there are any other relevant published works which are related to the article being reviewed that have not been cited by authors. Any previously published statement or reasoning must be accompanied by its corresponding cite. Reviewers must also warn the editor about any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript being reviewed and any other known document already published..
  • Disclosure and conflicts of interest. Unpublished material in form of manuscripts that have been submitted to the journal must not be used for evaluator’s own research without the express written consent of the author. Privileged information or ideas from peer-review must be confidential and will not be used to obtain personal benefit. Reviewers should not agree to review manuscripts that have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative relations or connections, or with any type of relationship with any of the authors, companies or institutions related to the article.

REFERENCES