Ethics of Publication
ETHICAL STANDARDS
HALAC is committed to establishing and complying with the parameters of ethical behavior in all steps of publishing scientific process and academic works. HALAC editorial team is made up of representatives of the Latin American and Caribbean Society of Environmental History (SOLCHA), it has in its structure an Editorial Coordination, an Editorial Board, a Scientific Council and Technical Editors. All these members work together with the anonymous authors and reviewers to guarantee the quality of the published contents, as well as to reach the appropriate ethical criteria from the sending to the publication of the articles. Below are the ethical standards for authors, editorial team and reviewers.
Responsibilities of the authors
Follow the rules of the journal in the submission of articles, available at: http://halacsolcha.org/index.php/halac/about/submissions#submission_checklist
Work authorship
The authorship should be limited to those who have made significant contributions in the conception, structuring, execution or interpretation of the presented document. All those who have made a significant contribution should be listed as co-authors. Those participants in a certain substantive aspect of the research project must be recognized or listed as contributors. The corresponding author must ensure that all appropriate co-authors are included in the work, and that they have seen and approved the final version and agree on its presentation for publication.
The intellectual property rights of third parties must be respected. Permissions must be sent for use, reproduction and publication of graphics, maps, diagrams, photographs, etc. Each author who signs the article must have contributed significantly to its realization.
Recognition of sources
The work done by another researcher must always be recognized. Authors should say the publications that were consulted in the presented work. Information obtained in particular, such as conversations, interviews, correspondence, or discussions with third parties should not be used or presented without the explicit and written permission of the source. The information obtained in the course of confidential services, such as submitted manuscripts or presentations to scholarships should not be used without explicit written permission by the author of the referred work.
It is necessary to present a list of bibliographical references at the end of the article and indicate funding agencies, the institutional or private location of all the historical documents mentioned in the article, as well as the complete bibliographic references.
Originality and plagiarism
Authors must ensure that they have written totally original works, and if the authors use a work and / or words of another person, that it is duly cited. Plagiarism takes several forms, when one author takes the work of another person as his own, by copying or paraphrasing substantial parts (without attribution), or even, the vindication of the results of an investigation made by others. Plagiarism in all its forms constitutes an unethical publication behavior, being unacceptable. Send original articles, without plagiarism or autoplaggio, without fraudulent data, and that is not what is called "Lower Publicable Part". Fraudulent statements and imprecise awareness of it constitute unethical behavior and is unacceptable.
They must know and accept the rules of Creative Commons License Attribute BY.
Basic errors in published works
When an author discovers a significant or imprecise error in his published work, it is his obligation to immediately notify the editor of the magazine and cooperate with him to retract or correct the work. If the editor discovers by third parties that a published work contains significant errors, it is the author's obligation to retract or correct the work or to provide evidence to the editor about the accuracy of the original work.
Hazards and uses of humans or animals for research
If the work involves chemical products, procedures or equipment that demonstrates any risk inherent to its use, the author must identify it clearly in his manuscript. If the work involves the use of humans or animals, the author should ensure that the manuscript contains a statement that all procedures were performed in accordance with current laws and institutional guidelines and that it has been approved by the appropriate institutional committee. The authors must include a statement in their manuscript informing that they have the consent for experiments with humans. Human rights of privacy must always be observed.
Disclosure and conflicts of interest
All authors must notify in their manuscript any conflict of interest, whether financial or other relevant conflict that could be understood as an influence on the results of the interpretation of the work. All sources of financial support for the project must be presented. Examples of possible conflicts of interest are: labor links, consultancy, ownership of shares, fees, documents, specialist payments, applications / patent registrations, and scholarships or other financing. Potential conflicts of interest have to be disclosed as soon as possible.
Access and data storage
Authors may be required to submit raw data in relation to the work for editorial reviews, they must be prepared to allow public access to this data if it is viable, and they must, independently of the instance, be prepared to retain that data for a period of time adequate after its publication.
Multiple, redundant and simultaneous publications
In general, an author should not publish manuscripts that essentially describe the same research in more than one newspaper or primary publication. The simultaneous presentation of the same manuscript for more than one newspaper constitutes an unethical publication behavior, being unacceptable. In general, an author should not present for consideration a work previously published in another newspaper. The publication of some types of articles (clinical guidelines, translations) in more than one newspaper is justifiable, as long as certain conditions are met. Authors and editors of interested newspapers should agree that the secondary publication should reflect the same data and interpretations of the primary document. The primary reference should be cited in the secondary publication.
Responsibilities of the Editorial Team
(These guidelines are based on existing policies at Elsevier and Good Practice Guidelines for Publishers of COPE Newspapers).
Publication Decisions
The editor of a peer review newspaper is responsible for the decision of the articles to be published. The validation of the work in question and its importance for researchers and readers should always be the reason that drives such decisions. The editor can be guided by the policies of the Editorial Board of the newspaper and limited by the current legal requirements regarding defamation, violation of copyrights and plagiarism. The editor can share with other editors the decision making and should strive to meet the needs of readers and authors to:
- a) to improve the magazine
- b) to guarantee the quality of the published material
- c) to maintain the integrity of the archive and the memory of the journal
- d) to publish corrections, clarifications, retractions and apology requests, if necessary.
Conduct shipments of special numbers in the same manner as any other shipment, being that the items will be considered and accepted solely for their academic merit, regardless of any personal influence.
Publish standards for authors by setting details about what is expected for the submissions on the journal's homepage. These standards for authors are regularly updated and they must inform about the stages of evaluation procedures.
Ethical standards
An editor must evaluate manuscripts for their intellectual content without distinction of race, gender, sexual orientation, religious beliefs, ethnic origins, citizenship or political philosophy of the authors.
Confidentiality
The editor or any other person of the Editorial Team must not disclose information about the submitted manuscripts, except for the author, reviewers, potential collaborators, other editorial advisors or the editor.
Disclosure and conflicts of interest
The disclosure of unpublished materials in a submitted manuscript should not be used by the editor in his or her own research without the express written permission of the author. Privileged information or ideas obtained by peer reviews must be confidential or unused for personal gain. Editors should refuse to consider manuscripts which they have conflicts of interest, resulting from collaboration, or other relationships or links with any of the authors, companies, or (eventually) institutions linked to the work. Publishers should require that all taxpayers disclose relevant conflicting interests and publish corrections if they were revealed after publication. If necessary, other appropriate measures will be taken, such as the publication of a retraction or note of interest.
Participation and cooperation in investigations
An editor must take reasonable responsibility measures when complaints are presented regarding ethical conduct in relation to a published manuscript or work, in conjunction with the publisher or society. Such measures will generally include contacting the author of the manuscript or work, making him / her receive due consideration in relation to the claim made, and it may include future communications with the relevant institutions and body of investigation, and if the claims are proven, the publication of a correction, retraction , note of interest or other note, if necessary. Any act related to unethical behavior in publications should be analyzed, even if it has been discovered after several years of publication. To discuss with the members of the Editorial, Scientific and Technical Editors' Councils regarding editorial policies, challenges and objectives, seeking a real collective effort to increase the quality of the journal.
Act in case of suspicion of misconduct, whether in press articles or already published, following the guidelines of COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics), giving authors ample opportunity to respond to complaints. All complaints are investigated, no matter when the article has been approved. The documentation relating to the complaint remains under the custody of the journal.
Responsibilities of reviewers
(These guidelines are based on existing policies at Elsevier and Good Practice Guidelines for Publishers of COPE Newspapers).
Contributions for editorial decisions
The peer review helps the editor to make editorial decisions, and the publisher through communication with the author can bring improvements to the work. Peer review is an essential component of formal academic communication, being considered as the soul of scientific methodology.
Promptness
Any selected evaluator who feels disqualified to review the research presented in a manuscript, or who is certain that he or she will not be able to conduct a quick review must notify the editor and request that it be removed from the review process.
Confidentiality
Any manuscript received for review must be treated as a confidential document. Manuscripts should not be shown or discussed with others that do not have permission from the editor.
Objectivity Norms
Reviews must be conducted objectively. The author's personal criticisms are inadequate. Evaluators should express their views with unbiased arguments.
Recognition of sources
The reviewers must identify publications of relevant works that have not been cited by the authors. Any statement that an observation, derivation or argument has been submitted previously must be accompanied by the corresponding citation. The reviewer should also draw the editor's attention to any substantial similarity or overlap between a manuscript under evaluation and any other published work of which he or she has personal knowledge.
Disclosure and conflicts of interest
Unpublished materials, disclosed in a submitted manuscript should not be used in a researcher's personal research without the express written consent of the author. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer reviews should be kept confidential and should not be used for personal gain. The reviewers must not consider manuscripts which they have conflicts of interest, whether as a result of competition, collaboration or another relationship or link with any other author, company or institutions that have connection with the work.
Procedures in cases of unethical behavior
- The complaints received by the magazine will be evaluated and answered by the Editorial Coordination and the Editorial Board. Its members are responsible for the proper investigation of the problems that arise.
- Evidence of misconduct must be gathered, preventing any information from spreading beyond those who really need to know about the investigations, as long as they are in the process of being resolved.
- Minor problems will be resolved without further consultation. In any case, the author or reviewer should have the opportunity to respond to any accusation.
- The Editorial Team is responsible for the investigation of possible complaints against the Chief Editor.
- Results to be published after investigating the complaints (in order of severity, and can be applied separately or jointly):
- To inform the author or reviewer where there is a lack of understanding or non-application of acceptable behavior standards.
- To send a letter warning of misconduct with a notice for future actions.
- To publish a formal note detailing the misconduct.
- To send a formal letter to the Director of the Department or Sponsor of the author or reviewer.
- To publish a formal retraction of the article already published.
- To inform the event for the professional organization of the Category or the highest authority for further investigations and actions.
