Plagarism policies

The journal's policy is to share original works not published before; this means that the pieces submitted must be written by those who declare their authorship and must not have been previously published elsewhere.

Given the limitations of text-matching softwares available for the Spanish language to detect plagiarism and in order to address other practices that may be considered plagiarism (including translations, salami slicing or result fragmentation, and duplication, among others) the journal implements specific procedures to avoid it, namely:

1. At the time of submission of a manuscript, authors are asked to declare that the piece has not been previously published or sent to other journals for evaluation. In addition, they are asked to declare that they are following the “Guidelines for Authors,” where it is established that the articles submitted should be original.
2. Upon receiving it and prior to starting the evaluation process, Internet search tools are used in order to corroborate originality and avoid plagiarism practices. That initial search involves tracking other works by the authors and collating the title and excerpts from the summary, methodological section and results with those of the article submitted for review.
3. When sending the work to evaluation by peer reviewers, the evaluators are asked to pay attention to possible plagiarism indicators, given that they are the ones more familiarized with the sources and the literature on the subject.

 The journal considers plagiarism all the practices listed and explained below.

1. Direct plagiarism occurs when:
   1. There is omission of the authorship and quotation marks are not used to indicate what was taken from another text.
   2. Minimal changes are made in the text of another author (modifying the structure of sentences, changing lowercase to uppercase or vice versa, replacing terms with synonyms, etc.) and it is presented as original.
2. Plagiarism from improper use of paraphrase occurs when:
   1. Although authorship is acknowledged, the original text is reproduced with few changes that do not constitute actual paraphrase.
3. Complex plagiarism when using a reference occurs when:
   1. Original authorship is acknowledged, but the source pages are indicated imprecisely.
   2. Paraphrasing in which extensive texts are summarized, but with little or no indication that they correspond to paraphrasing.
   3. No quotation marks in words and phrases from the original text that are reproduced verbatim.

 

4. Plagiarism with loose quotation marks occurs when:
   1. Text is reproduced verbatim even after quotation marks have been closed or when the indication that the preceding phrases correspond to the same quotation is omitted.
5. Paraphrasing as plagiarism occurs when:
   1. There is paraphrasing and the reference to the original source is not acknowledged.
   2. Paraphrasing is extensive and continuous, no additions interacting or enriching the original are made, even if the source is indicated.
   3. Academic works–which demand original thoughts and critical reflections upon other people’s points of view–become mere repetitions of other academic texts.
   4. There is no clear identification of paraphrased parts.

Paraphrasing will not be considered plagiarism when:

1. It does not dominates the work of the author.
2. It allows the author to critically interact with the viewpoints of the other person.
3. The argument of the original text is re-written using different words.

6. Self-plagiarism or recycling fraud occurs when:
   1. The layout of a work is changed and is submitted as if it were a different one.
   2. There is no indication that the work is being recycled, that is, that the work had been previously published but new corrections or additions were made.

It will not be considered self-plagiarism when:

1. The previous work is the base for a new contribution and key parts of the first work need to be repeated to explain and defend new arguments.
2. The author considers that what was previoulsy said cannot be improved in the new publication.
3. The repetition does not exceed 30% of the original work.

  

Ethical aspects and conflicts of interest

 The publication of the journal is the result of the collective work and effort of authors, editors and evaluators who are interested in the development of science for its social and cultural contribution. Because of this, and within the open access policy of the Universidad Nacional de La Plata (National University of La Plata), the journal will not charge the authors for the publication of their works, making all the articles readily accessible to everyone.

The journal’s editors are committed to avoid any possible conflict of interest between the different participants of the production. All text submitted will be evaluated based on its intelectual content; the authors’ ethnic origin, nationality, gender, sexual orientation, religious beliefs or political philosophy will not interfere in the evaluation process. At the same time, all external evaluations where personal positions prevail over the quality of the work will be dismissed.

Authors and evaluators are asked to disclose beforehand all possible conflicts of interest they may have, so these are taken into account when evaluations are assigned. If any such conflict arose after the publication of the manuscript, either a retractation or acknowledgement of the fact will be produced, if needed.

A “conflict of interest” is a situation in which a person faces a divergence between his/her personal interest and his/her responsibilities towards the scientific activities involved as an author, reviewer or member of the editorial board; such divergence can influence his/her critical jusdgement and the integrity of his/her actions. For example:

• Economical: When the participant (author, reviewer, editor) has received or is expected to receive money for the activities related to the investigation and its diffusion.
• Academic: When the reviewers or editors adhere to a certain methodological or ideological tendency in a way that can bring partiality when evaluating other people’s works. This is why they are asked to manifest such position in advance.
• Work or personal relations: When the participants (author, reviewer, editor) have some sort of bond (friendship, feud, work relationship.) To avoid this, editors must take into account the authors’ funding and affiliation and ensure to choose evaluators that do not belong to the same circles.

  International guidelines

 After analyzing the specific problems faced while editing scientific content, different international entities have taken the task of agreeing on criteria and generating guidelines and documents that support the task of editor and authors, namely:

• COPE | Committee on Publication Ethics
• International Committee of Medical Journal Editors
• Council of Science Editors
• Office of Research Integrity (ORI) | U.S. Department of Health & Human Services

 

This journal’s editors will follow recommendations and guidelines that have been agreed upon internationally to solve specific problems faced when editing scientific content. The first source that will be considered are the guidelines set forth by the COPE | Committee on Publication Ethics. Other recommendations will also be taken into account, for instance those by internationally prestigious organizations such as the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, the Council of Science Editors and the Office of Research Integrity (ORI) | U.S. Department of Health & Human Services.

Authors, investigators and reviewers are encouraged to get familiarized with international guidelines related to publication ethics, specifically the ones from the links provided below, to avoid misconduct due to ignorance.

 

COPE | Committee on Publication Ethics

Provides guidelines on what to do in the following cases:

1. What to do if redundant or duplicate publication is suspected
   1. Suspected redundant publication in a submitted manuscript
   2. Suspected redundant publication in a published manuscript
2. What to do if plagiarism is suspected
   1. Suspected plagiarism in a submitted manuscript
   2. Suspected plagiarism in a published manuscript
3. What to do if fabricated data is suspected
   1. Suspected fabricated data in a submitted manuscript
   2. Suspected fabricated data in a published manuscript
4. Changes in authorship
   1. Corresponding author requests addition of extra author before publication
   2. Corresponding author requests removal of author before publication
   3. Request for addition of extra author after publication
   4. Request for removal of author after publication
5. What to do if ghost, guest or gift authorship is suspected
6. How to spot authorship problems
7. What to do if a reviewer suspects undisclosed conflict of interest in a submitted manuscript
8. What to do if a reader suspects undisclosed conflict of interest in a published article
9. What to do if an ethical problem in a submitted manuscript is suspected
10. What to do if it is suspected that a reviewer has appropriated an author’s idea or data
11. Handling by COPE of complaints against editors

 

International Committee of Medical Journal Editors

Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals: Writing and Editing for Biomedical Publications

Last updated: December 2018