Editorial Policies

Focus and Scope

ANUARIO LATINOAMERICANO – Ciencias Políticas y Relaciones Internacionales is a scientific peer-reviewed journal, created in 2014 by Prof. Dr. hab. Katarzyna Krzywicka and published by the Faculty of Political Science and Journalism of the Maria Curie-Skłodowska University in Lublin both in print and digitally. Anuario Latinoamericano is the first scientific journal with political science profile in the field of Latin American studies published in Poland. Anuario Latinoamericano will publish original high-quality works with an adequate theoretical and analytical framework, monographs, and comparative studies presenting novel and controversial topics, as well as book reviews and reports. The editors of the journal have set various objectives to be fulfilled by the publication: to ensure continuous contact of readers, researchers and students with current issues in the field of Latin American political studies; to integrate and deepen scientific cooperation; to promote intellectual exchange among scientists from national and foreign research centers. We hope that Anuario Latinoamericano – Ciencias Políticas y Relaciones Internacionales will be a base for scientific debates while simultaneously deepening the internationalization of our academic network of European as well as Latin American analysts from various countries.

 

Section Policies

Introduction

Unchecked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Unchecked Peer Reviewed

Editorial

Unchecked Open Submissions Unchecked Indexed Unchecked Peer Reviewed

Dossier

The dossier's content is based on a particular topic raised in each issue of the journal.

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Articles and essays

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Reviews and reports

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Unchecked Peer Reviewed

Full issue

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Unchecked Peer Reviewed
 

Peer Review Process

1. In order to guarantee originality and respect for the copyright of other researchers, articles that aspire to be published in the journal will be subject to revision through anti-plagiarism program. This review is done in the initial stage of the evaluation process. The peer reviewers will be notified of the evaluation results of the anti-plagiarism program.

2. To assess each publication, at least two independent reviewers shall be appointed from outside the scientific unit affiliated by the author and from outside the Faculty of Political Science and Journalism of the Maria Curie-Skłodowska University in Lublin.

3. The author and reviewers shall not know the identities of one another (double-blind review process).

4. Reviewers shall be appointed by the Editor-in-Chief. Where necessary, the relevant members of the Scientific Board shall be consulted.

5. The reviewer shall prepare the review in a written form using the EVALUATION FORM FOR RESEARCH PAPERS.

9. The reviewer may choose the following recommendations concerning the peer-reviewed manuscript: Accept Submission, Minor Revision Required, Major Revision Required, Decline Submission.

10. In situations of controversy or in the event of inconsistent reviews, the admission to publication shall be decided by the Editor-in-chief, consulting with the members of the Editorial Board, which may appoint an additional reviewer or reviewers.

11. Only manuscripts which have got two positive reviews shall be allowed for publication.

12. Once the review is received, their content shall be communicated to the author without disclosing the identity of the reviewers.

13. The author of the text is obliged to respond substantively to all comments and conclusions posted in the review.

14. In the case of conditional reviews, the Editorial Board may allow the manuscript for publication provided that the author modifies the text as indicated by the reviewer and confirms this fact in the relevant statement, which should be submitted to the editor.

15. The names of reviewers of individual articles shall not be disclosed.

16. The journal shall publish a list of all cooperating reviewers.

GUIDELINES FOR REVIEWERS

1. Before agreeing to prepare the review, the reviewer should consider whether the topic and subject matter of the text are consistent with his/her competence or research interests.

2. The intended time to write a review of one manuscript is 4 weeks. If the reviewer finds it impossible to timely draw up the review is not possible, he/she should notify the editor without undue delay so as other potential reviewers can be contacted.

3. The reviewer should not undertake to review texts about which there is a reasonable suspicion of a conflict of interest resulting from competition, cooperation or other personal, financial or professional relationships with any of the authors or institutions related to the submitted manuscript.

ASSESSMENT CRITERIA FOR MANUSCRIPTS TO BE REVIEWED

The reviewer should assess the manuscript taking into account:

  • the compliance of the reviewed text with the journal's profile;
  • the substantive side of the text and compliance of the article with the IMRAD structure (Introduction, Materials & Methods, Results and Discussion);
  • the correctness of the selection and application of research methods and their innovativeness;
  • the number and correctness of the selection of sources and literature;
  • compliance of the abstract, keywords and references with the requirements of the journal;
  • the level of research tools;
  • the consistency and clarity of the text;
  • compliance with the rules for text formatting, footnotes and references set out in the guidelines for authors.

ETHICS RULES

1. Suspected redundant (duplicate) publication

  • If the reviewer suspects that the reviewed text is a redundant (duplicate) publication, he/she shall notify the editor.
  • A redundant (duplicate) publication is to be understood as a manuscript in which the author reproduces his/her own previously published papers in the form of a literal or partial repetition of his/her own publications or the submission of a text published in another language.
  • The reviewer should make available to the editor the relevant evidence which forms the basis for the suspicion that the publication is redundant (duplicate).
  • Where the reviewer reports a suspected redundant (duplicate) publication, the editor shall carry out a proceeding compliant with the relevant rules set out by COPE (The Committee on Publication Ethics) referred to at https://publicationethics.org/guidance/Flowcharts.

2. Suspected plagiarism in a submitted manuscript

  • The reviewer should inform the editor of the suspected plagiarism.
  • The reviewer should make available to the editor the relevant evidence which forms the basis for the suspicion of plagiarism.
  • Where the reviewer reports a suspected plagiarism, the editor shall carry out a proceeding compliant with the relevant rules set out by COPE (The Committee on Publication Ethics) referred to at https://publicationethics.org/guidance/Flowcharts.

3. Suspected ghost, guest or gift authorship

  • If the reviewer suspects that a manuscript was written by someone who was not on the list of authors or who was not properly included in the acknowledgements or lists authors that should not be credited (guest or gift authors), he/she should inform the editor.
  • The evaluation of ghost, guest or gift authorship shall be performed pursuant to relevant rules defined by COPE (The Committee on Publication Ethics) (https://publicationethics.org/guidance/Flowcharts).
  • The reviewer should make available to the editor any relevant evidence that is a basis for the suspicion of ghost, guest or gift authorship.
  • Where the reviewer reports the suspected ghost, guest or gift authorship, the editor shall carry out a proceeding compliant with the relevant rules set out by COPE (The Committee on Publication Ethics) referred to at https://publicationethics.org/guidance/Flowcharts.

4. Undisclosed conflict of interest in a submitted manuscript

  • If the reviewer suspects an undisclosed conflict of interest in the submitted manuscript, he/she shall notify the editor.
  • A conflict of interest may arise from a competitive activity, cooperation or other personal, financial or professional relationships with any of the authors or institutions related to the manuscript submitted.
  • Where the reviewer reports the suspicion of an undisclosed conflict of interest in the submitted manuscript, the editor shall carry out a proceeding compliant with the relevant rules set out by COPE (The Committee on Publication Ethics) referred to at https://publicationethics.org/guidance/Flowcharts.

5. Ethical problem with a submitted manuscript

  • If the reviewer suspects a specific ethical problem with a submitted manuscript, he/she shall notify the editor.
  • Where the reviewer reports that there is an ethical problem with a submitted manuscript, the editor shall carry out a proceeding compliant with the relevant rules set out by COPE (The Committee on Publication Ethics) referred to at https://publicationethics.org/guidance/Flowcharts.

6. Confidentiality

  • Texts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They may not be disclosed or discussed with other persons unless the reviewer has obtained the editor's consent.
  • Non-published materials disclosed in the submitted manuscript may not be used in the reviewer's own research without the express written consent of the author.
  • Where there is a suspicion that the reviewer misappropriated the author's ideas or data, the editor shall carry out a proceeding compliant with the relevant rules set out by COPE (The Committee on Publication Ethics) referred to at https://publicationethics.org/guidance/Flowcharts.

7. Objectivity of a review

  • Reviews should be conducted objectively.
  • Personal criticism of the author is unacceptable.

 

 

Publication Frequency

CALL FOR PAPERS

We are pleased to announce the call for papers for the volumes 17/2024 and 18/2025 of the journal Anuario Latinoamericano.

The Dossier of the vol. 17/2024 will be dedicated to the theme “Latin America: Changes at Regional Level in the Global Context”. The closing date for submissions is 30 November 2024. The publication of the volume is scheduled for March 2025.

The Dossier of the vol. 18/2025 will be dedicated to the theme “Latin America: Relations with the United States of America”. The closing date for submissions is 31 March 2025. The publication of the volume is scheduled for July 2025.

Articles must be submitted in Spanish or English (40,000 characters, including bibliographical references) and book reviews (10,000 characters). Information on editorial requirements can be found on the journal’s website: https://journals.umcs.pl/al/about/submissions#authorGuidelines

We appreciate the dissemination of our call.

 

Open Access Policy

The journal is available, based on the principles of open access. This means that there is open, free-of-charge and fast access to the electronic version of each scientific publication featured in the journal. Every user is entitled to read, copy, disseminate and quote content of articles, conference and research reports as well as book reviews published in open access. The user has access to all materials without financial, legal or technical restrictions, whilst respecting copyright issues. All past issues of the journal are archived and available on the website of the Maria Curie-Sklodowska University Digital Library: http://dlibra.umcs.lublin.pl/publication/35349

ccby

 

Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice Statement

Anuario Latinoamericano – Ciencias Políticas y Relaciones Internacionales is committed to upholding the ethical standards of scientific publications and takes all possible measures against any publication malpractices. The journal publishers endorse the principles of transparency and good practice established by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and follow the guidelines of Publishing Ethics of the ELSEVIER.

For all parties involved in the act of publishing (the author, the journal editor(s), the peer reviewer, and the publisher) it is necessary to agree upon standards of expected ethical behavior.

Anuario Latinoamericano – Ciencias Políticas y Relaciones Internacionales prevents ghost-writing, guest authorship and honorary authorship in academic research. All parties who have made a substantive contribution to the paper should be listed as authors. Principal authorship, authorship order and other publication credits should be based on the relative scientific or professional contributions of the individuals involved. Those who contributed to the work but do not meet the authorship criteria can be mentioned in the Acknowledgments. The principal author must be prepared to sign the copyright agreement on behalf of all the authors. The signed agreement and declaration of authorship should be attached to the submission.

When submitting an original text to Anuario Latinoamericano – Ciencias Políticas y Relaciones Internacionales, the authors accept customary practice of the scientific community: they shall submit only original works, which are not subject to evaluation process by other journals. Similarly, the original texts submitted to the journal shall not be sent to other publishers while the evaluation process carried out by our journal has not been completed. The authors must comply with the international regulations concerning copyright of the texts, images and other materials included in their works submitted for publication. Anuario Latinoamericano – Ciencias Políticas y Relaciones Internacionales prevents copyright infringement, plagiarism and other breaches of best practice in publication. Plagiarism is not acceptable and plagiarized content will not be considered for publication. If plagiarism is identified, Anuario Latinoamericano – Ciencias Políticas y Relaciones Internacionales follows the COPE plagiarism guidelines. If plagiarism is detected during the peer review process, the paper may be rejected. If plagiarism is detected after publication, Anuario Latinoamericano – Ciencias Políticas y Relaciones Internacionales may issue a correction or retract the paper, as appropriate.

EDITOR RESPONSIBILITIES

1. The editor of a peer-reviewed journal is responsible for deciding which articles, reviews and reports from scientific conferences submitted to the journal should be published, and, moreover, is accountable for everything published in the journal.

2. The editor may be guided by the policies of the journal's editorial board and constrained by such legal requirements as shall then be in force regarding issues such as libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism.

3. The editor may confer with other editors or reviewers when making publication decisions.

4. The editor should maintain the integrity of the academic record, preclude business needs from compromising intellectual and ethical standards, and always be willing to publish corrections, clarifications, retractions and apologies when needed.

5. The editor shall ensure that the peer review process is fair, unbiased, and timely.

6. Research articles must typically be reviewed by at least two external and independent reviewers, and where necessary the editor should seek additional opinions.

7.The editor shall select reviewers who have suitable expertise in the relevant field and shall follow best practice in avoiding the selection of fraudulent peer reviewers. The editor shall review all disclosures of potential conflicts of interest and suggestions for self-citation made by reviewers in order to determine whether there is any potential for bias.

8.The editor should evaluate manuscripts for intellectual content without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the author(s).

9. The editor will not disclose any information about a manuscript under consideration to anyone other than the author(s), reviewers and potential reviewers, and in some instances the editorial board members, as appropriate.

10.The editor and any editorial staff must not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher, as appropriate.

11. The editor will be guided by COPE’s Guidelines for Retracting Articles when considering retracting, issuing expressions of concern about, and issuing corrections pertaining to articles that have been published in Anuario Latinoamericano.

12. Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in an editor’s own research without the express written consent of the author. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage.

13. The editor should seek to ensure a fair and appropriate peer review process. Editors should recuse themselves (i.e., should ask a co-editor, associate editor or other member of the editorial board instead to review and consider) from considering manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or (possibly) institutions connected to the papers. Editors should require all contributors to disclose relevant competing interests and publish corrections if competing interests are revealed after publication. If needed, other appropriate action should be taken, such as the publication of a retraction or expression of concern.

14. Editors should guard the integrity of the published record by issuing corrections and retractions when needed and pursuing suspected or alleged research and publication misconduct.

15. Editors should pursue reviewer and editorial misconduct.

16. An editor should take reasonably responsive measures when ethical complaints have been presented concerning a submitted manuscript or published paper.

17.The editor must not attempt to influence the journal’s ranking by artificially increasing any journal metric. In particular, the editor shall not require that references to that (or any other) journal’s articles be included except for genuine scholarly reasons and authors should not be required to include references to the editor’s own articles or products and services in which the editor has an interest.

REVIEWER RESPONSIBILITIES

1. Peer review assists the editor in making editorial decisions and, through the editorial communication with the author, may also assist the author in improving the manuscript.

2. Any invited referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its timely review will be impossible should immediately notify the editor so that alternative reviewers can be contacted.

3. Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be shown to or discussed with others except if authorized by the editor.

4. Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is unacceptable. Referees should express their views clearly with appropriate supporting arguments.

5. Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation.

6. A reviewer should also call to the editor's attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published data of which they have personal knowledge.

7. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage.

8. Reviewers should not consider evaluating manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the submission.

AUTHOR RESPONSIBILITIES

1. Authors reporting results of original research should present an accurate account of the work performed as well as an objective discussion of its significance. Underlying data should be represented accurately in the manuscript. A paper should contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable.

2. Authors may be asked to provide the research data supporting their paper for editorial review and/or to comply with the open data requirements of the journal.

3. Authors should be prepared to provide public access to such data, if practicable, and should be prepared to retain such data for a reasonable number of years after publication.

4. Authors should ensure that they have written entirely original works, and if the authors have used the work and/or words of others that this has been appropriately cited or quoted.

5. An author should not in general publish manuscripts describing essentially the same research in more than one journal or primary publication. Parallel submission of the same manuscript to more than one journal constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable.

6. Proper acknowledgment of the work of others must always be given. Authors should also cite publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work.

7. Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the reported study.

8. All those who have made significant contributions should be listed as co-authors.

9. Where there are others who have participated in certain substantive aspects of the research project, they should be named in an Acknowledgement section.

10. The corresponding author should ensure that all appropriate co-authors (according to the above definition) and no inappropriate co-authors are included in the author list of the manuscript and that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the paper and have agreed to its submission for publication.

11. Authors take collective responsibility for the work. Each individual author is accountable for ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.

12. All authors should disclose in their manuscript any financial or other substantive conflict of interest that might be construed to influence the results or their interpretation in the manuscript.

13. All sources of financial support for the project should be disclosed.

14. When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in his/her own published work, it is the author’s obligation to promptly notify the journal’s editor or publisher and cooperate with them to either retract the paper or to publish an appropriate erratum.

SCIENTIFIC BOARD RESPONSIBILITIES

The Scientific Board is formed by international political science experts in the field of Latin American studies. Its main mission is to ensure quality of the contents of the journal and help define its editorial policy. Its functions are the following:

  • to evaluate the journal on a permanent basis in relation to its quality and impact,
  • to propose measures and suggestions aimed at increasing its quality and development,
  • to contribute to the dissemination of the journal in different fora, to encourage and motivate potential authors to submit articles to the journal,
  • to propose specialists for the external evaluation of articles.

 

Peer Review Committee

  • Martha Ardila (Externado University of Colombia, Colombia)
  • Sergio Arribá (University of Buenos Aires, Argentina)
  • Víctor Alarcón Olguín (Metropolitan Autonomous University, Mexico)
  • William H. Alfonso Piña (University of Rosario, Colombia)
  • Fernando Barrientos del Monte (University of Guanajuato, Mexico)
  • Raúl Benítez Manaut (National Autonomous University of Mexico, Mexico)
  • Ricardo Becerra Pérez (Autonomous University of Nayarit, Mexico)
  • Peter Birle (Ibero-American Institute, Germany)
  • Marta Rosa Borin (Federal University of Santa Maria, Brazil)
  • Daniel Buquet Corleto (University of the Republic of Uruguay, Uruguay)
  • Vinícius de Carvalho (King's College London, Great Britain)
  • Jorge Chaires Zaragoza (University of Guadalajara, Mexico)
  • Andrés Malamud (University of Lisbon, Portugal)
  • Ignacio Medina Núñez (University of Guadalajara, Mexico)
  • Clayton Mendonça Cunha Filho (Federal University of Ceará, Brazil)
  • Albene Miriam Menezes Klemi (University of Brasilia, Brazil)
  • Fabrício Pereira (Federal University of the State of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil)
  • Carlos A. Pérez Ricart (University of Oxford, United Kingdom)
  • Ednaldo Ribeiro (Maringá State University, Brazil)
  • Alberto Rocha Valencia (University of Guadalajara, Mexico)
  • Rodrigo Conde Tudanca (University of Simón Bolívar, Venezuela)
  • Katarzyna Dembicz (University of Warsaw, Poland)
  • Karol Derwich (Jagiellonian University, Poland)
  • Sergio Eissa (University of Buenos Aires, Argentina)
  • Luís Alexandre Fuccille (São Paulo State University, Brazil)
  • Marcin Florian Gawrycki (University of Warsaw, Poland)
  • Artur Gruszczak (Jagiellonian University, Poland)
  • Ana Lía del Valle Guerrero (National University of South, Argentina)
  • Zbigniew Iwanowski (Lomonosov Moscow State University, Russia)
  • Victor Jeifets (Saint Petersburg State University, Russia)
  • Margarita Jiménez Badillo (National Autonomous University of Mexico, Mexico)
  • Francisco Javier Jover Martí (University of Castilla-La Mancha, Spain)              
  • Karel Kouba (University of Hradec Králové, Czech Republic)
  • Viktoria Kritikou (National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Greece)
  • Virginie Mariepierre Laurent (University of Los Andes, Colombia)
  • Bogumiła Lisocka-Jaegermann (University of Warsaw, Poland)
  • José de Jesús López Almejo (Autonomous University of Baja California, Mexico)
  • Piotr Łaciński (Collegium Civitas, Poland)
  • Shiguenoli Miyamoto (University of Campinas, Brazil)
  • María de Monserrat Llairó (University of Buenos Aires, Argentina)
  • Magdalena López (University of Notre Dame, United States of America)
  • Elio Masferrer Kan (National School of Anthropology and History, Mexico)
  • Marcos Pablo Moloeznik (University of Guadalajara, Mexico)
  • Daniel E. Morales Ruvalcaba (Sun Yat-sen University, People’s Republic of China)
  • Carlos Moreira (Autonomous University of Baja California, Mexico)
  • Małgorzata Nalewajko (University of Warsaw, Poland)
  • Fernando Neira Orjuela (National Autonomous University of Mexico, Mexico)
  • Detlef Nolte (GIGA Institute of Latin American Studies, Germany)
  • Janina Onuki (University of São Paulo, Brazil)
  • Lukas Perutka (Charles University in Prague, Czech Republic)
  • Andrzej Pietrzak (John Paul II Catholic University of Lublin, Poland)
  • Solange Ramos de Andrade (State University of Maringá, Brazil)
  • Rafał Reichert (University of Warsaw, Poland)
  • Gerardo Reyes Guzmán (Tlaxcala College, Mexico)
  • Héctor Luis Saint Pierre (University of São Paulo, Brazil)
  • Claudio Silveira (Rio de Janeiro State University, Brazil)
  • Renata Siuda-Ambroziak (University of Warsaw, Poland)
  • Maria do Socorro Sousa Braga (Federal University of São Carlos, Brazil)
  • Sergio Solbes Ferri (University of Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, Spain)
  • Cristina Soreanu Pecequilo (São Paulo State University, Brazil)
  • Pavlína Springerová (University of Hradec Králové, Czech Republic)
  • María Eugenia Suárez de Garay (University of Guadalajara, Mexico)
  • Mario Sznajder (Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Israel)
  • María Laura Tagina (San Martín National University, Argentina)
  • Aline Tedeschi da Cunha (São Paulo State University, Brazil)
  • Jesús Tovar Mendoza (Autonomous University of Mexico State, Mexico)
  • Paweł Trefler (East European State Higher School, Poland)
  • Eduardo Tzili (Metropolitan Autonomous University – Xochimilco, Mexico)
  • Yanina Welp (Albert Hirschman Centre on Democracy, Switzerland)
  • Javier Hugo Zenclussen (Pontifical Catholic University of Argentina in Rosario, Argentina)

 

Indexing in Databases

Bielefeld Academic Search Engine

CEJSH Central European Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities

CROSSREF

DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals

ERIH PLUS European Reference Index for the Humanities

INDEX COPERNICUS International Journals Master List

IPSA-AISP International Political Science Association

LATINDEX Sistema Regional de Información en Línea para Revistas Científicas de América Latina, el Caribe, España y Portugal

Open Science Directory

Polon - PBN Polska Bibliografia Naukowa

REDIB Red Iberoamericana de Innovación y Conocimiento Científico

ROAD Directory of Open Access Scholarly Resources

OCLC WorldCat Digital Collection Gateway

ARIANTA Naukowe i branżowe polskie czasopisma elektroniczne

 

Standards of Proceeding in the Event of Suspected Infringement of Ethical Rules

If any manifestation of scientific unreliability is detected, the Editorial Board shall apply the following rules of procedure, based on guidelines in the form of diagrams (https://publicationethics.org/guidance/Flowcharts) developed by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and made available under license CC BY-NC-ND 3.0.

1. Rules of procedure in the case of a suspected redundant (duplicate) publication

A redundant (duplicate) publication is to be understood as a manuscript in which the author reproduces his/her own previously published papers in the form of a literal or partial repetition of his/her own publications or the submission of a text published in another language.

Proceeding in the case of a suspected redundant (duplicate) publication in the submitted and published manuscript

2. Rules of procedure in the cases of suspected plagiarism

Plagiarism is defined as either the acquisition of someone else's work in whole or in large part in its unchanged form or with minor modifications (explicit plagiarism), or the presentation of someone else's work in a modified form, while retaining the creative and individual characteristics given to it by the actual author (hidden plagiarism).

Proceeding in the case of suspected plagiarism in a submitted and published manuscript

3. Rules of procedure in the case of suspected fabrication of data

Data fabrication occurs where the author of the manuscript presents the results of research work which has not taken place or changes the results of the research carried out in an arbitrary or unjustified manner.

Proceeding in the case of suspected fabrication of data in a submitted and published manuscript

4. Rules of procedure in the case of an application to modify the list of authors

Proceeding in the case where a correspondence author requests that another author be added or deleted before and after publication of a manuscript

5. Rules of procedure in the case of suspected ghost, guest or gift authorship

  • A ghost author is someone who is omitted from an authorship list despite qualifying for authorship.
  • A guest author is someone who is listed as an author despite not qualifying for authorship. Guests are people brought in to make the list look more impressive (despite having little or no involvement with the research or publication).
  • A gift author is someone who is listed as an author despite not qualifying for authorship. Gift authorship involves including colleagues on papers in return for being listed on theirs.

Proceeding in the case of suspected ghost, guest or gift authorship

6. Rules of conduct in the event of a suspected undisclosed conflict of interest

A conflict of interest shall be deemed to be the relationship arising from a competitive activity, cooperation or other personal, financial or professional relationships of the reviewer with any of the authors or institutions related to the manuscript submitted.

Proceeding in the case where the reviewer suspects an undisclosed conflict of interest in a submitted manuscript and where the reader suspects an undisclosed conflict of interest in a published article

7. Rules of conduct in the case of a suspected ethical problem with a submitted manuscript

Proceeding where the editor suspects that there is an ethical problem with a submitted manuscript

8. Rules of procedure in the case of a suspected misappropriation of author's ideas or data by the reviewer

Proceeding in the event of a suspicion that the reviewer has misappropriated the author's ideas or data

9. Rules for responding to whistleblowers

Rules for responding to whistleblowers who have raised their concerns directly or via social media