Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement

Isonomía is an open access double-blind peer review journal. No fees or charges are required for manuscript processing and/or publishing in Isonomía.

Isonomía adheres to the guidelines on research and publications ethics of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) that regulate the behaviour of editors, authors and external reviewers. 

In particular, we highlight the following commitments:

1. Submitted manuscripts must be original, contributing in an innovative fashion to the existing academic literature. In order to avoid any form of malpractice, authors are required to check that their submissions meet all of the following requirements. Submissions may be returned to authors in case they do not fulfil all such standards.

2. Authors must duly recognize the academic work of other researchers, which must be properly and correctly cited and referenced, according to the Instructions for Authors.

Plagiarism takes many forms, from “passing off” another’s paper as the author’s own, to paraphrasing substantial parts of another's publication (without due acknowledgment). Any form of plagiarism constitutes unethical publishing behaviour and is deemed unacceptable.

Editors will take any reasonable and necessary steps in order to prevent the publication of manuscript where ethical malpractice has occurred (not only plagiarism, but also citation manipulation, data falsification and/or fabrication, and any other equivalent practice, violating the same ethical principles). In the case of malpractice allegation referring to a published article in Isonomía, the editors will follow COPEs guidelines in dealing with the allegations.

3. Editors commit to guaranteeing the academic and deontological standing and quality of external reviewers, i.e. academics that are not part of the journals editorial team and board.

Given the high-quality peer review process Isonomía adheres to, reviewers must provide a reasoned and well-grounded assessment of the manuscript under review in support of their decision (reject, revise and resubmit, accept with minor changes, accept with major changes).

Among other criteria reviewers may deem relevant, a manuscript should be evaluated regarding its novelty and contribution to the literature, its importance, its logical consistency, the quality and cogency of the arguments and claims made, the nature of evidence adduced and the size, scope and adequacy of the literature discussed.

4. Competing interests.

Reviewers are required to declare any potential competing interests that could interfere with the objectivity or integrity of their review. Competing interests are situations that could be perceived to exert an undue influence on the review of the assigned piece of work. These may be financial, non-financial, professional, contractual or personal in nature. We also expect that anyone who suspects undisclosed competing interests regarding a work under consideration should inform the Editor-in-chief. A competing interest declaration is required from external reviewer before being allowed to review the manuscript.

5. Absolute confidentiality: any manuscripts received for review are confidential documents.

Editors ensure that manuscripts received and circulated do not contain elements that allow authors to be identified. Regardless of their peer review assessments and editorial decisions, Editors and Reviewers must not disclose or discuss the manuscript with third parties.

6. Respect and fair play in the exchanges between authors, editors and reviewers:

a) Reviewers must refrain from being offensive even when their assessment of the work under evaluation is highly critical.

b) Authors whose text has been negatively evaluated must refrain from adopting offensive behaviour.

c)  The editorial process, comprising all communication between editors and authors and editors and external reviewers, shall always be constructive and transparent.

7. Promptness

It is crucial that Reviewers provide prompt reviews and that Authors are expedite in responding to the latter, always in respect of the Journal’s deadlines.

Reviewers who feel unqualified to review the manuscript or think that they will be unable to comply with the Journal’s deadlines, should immediately notify the editors so that alternative reviewers can be contacted.

8.  Personal data

Isonomía adheres to the following principles regarding personal data:

a) The Journal commits to use the minimum necessary personal data and always for purely editorial purposes.

b) Isonomía does not disclose personal data to third parties.

c) The full name, ORCID, and affiliation of authors will be published as part of the authorship details of the text.

d) The author shall not use personal data relative to third parties except when authorized. Proof of express authorization must be attached to the submission.

Anyone who believes that these guidelines have not been followed should raise their concern with the Editor-in-Chief.