Ethical guidelines for publication in the Journal   (The following guidelines are based on ELSEVIER policies and the good practice guides for editors of scientific journals COPE )

Ius et tribunalis adheres to the “ Guide to good practices for Journal  editors ” and other ethical provisions of the COPE (Committe On Publication Ethics), as well as the provisions of Habeas Data , for the management of personal information in databases.

https://blogposgrado.ucontinental.edu.pe/el-proceso-constitucional-de-habeas-data

Ethical principles

Articles published in the Journal  Ius et tribunalis They are subject to compliance with the Principles of Transparency and Best Practices in Academic Publications established by COPE ( See document ) and other principles contained in the different declarations and legislation on intellectual property and copyright. Therefore, the authors of articles accepted for publication must sign the declaration of originality, transfer of rights and full compliance with ethical principles. These documents can be downloaded from the journal's website. in the Formats section.

Ius et tribunalis has a "Zero Tolerance for Plagiarism" policy. We check for plagiarism through three methods: verification by the editor's and assistant's editorial board, through plagiarism prevention software and tools such as Turnitin and IThenticate .

In the event of any alleged misconduct or unethical behavior on the part of any author or reviewer, the Editor will initiate a review process, as well as The journal will resolve any concerning questions using the COPE recommendations, which are the best practices for the management of scientific ethics. They are available at the following link (See link)

Authors' Duties:

Any document submitted for possible publication in Ius et tribunalis must be subject to an exhaustive review process by the authors, respecting the universal ethical principles of scientific publication and the journal's policies.

Authors must give an exact account of their work as well as an objective discussion of their contribution. The sources will be presented accurately in the document. The articles must be clear and structured according to the structure of the scientific article. Fraudulent contributions constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable. Articles must be precise and objective.

Originality and plagiarism: Authors must ensure that they have written completely original works; if authors have used the work or words of others, they must ensure that these have been properly cited. Plagiarism manifests itself in many ways, from passing off a document from other authors as your own, to copying or paraphrasing substantial parts of a document from others (without attributing acknowledgment), claiming as your own the results of research carried out by others. . Plagiarism occurs when an author presents data created by others as his or her own ideas. The cases of plagiarism are the following: direct copying of a text without quoting or citing the source, modification of some words in the text, paraphrasing and lack of acknowledgments. Journal.  It relies on tools that detect any of these cases in the postulated articles.

Works translated from other languages ​​are not considered original.

About plagiarism:

Journal  Please remember that in the case of proven plagiarism in the articles, the author(s) will be permanently banned. It is remembered that plagiarism is the action by which segments of works by other authors are reproduced or paraphrased without the corresponding reference or recognition. It is plagiarized when:

- Fragments of other people's works are included or used in the work without quotes or reference to the source.

- It is copied and pasted, directly, from other sources without referencing or without indicating that it is a textual quote.

- Images, tables or diagrams are included without recognition of their origin.

It is pertinent to clarify that plagiarism, whether conscious or not, is a serious and judicial offense.

Self-plagiarism: the fact that authors take sections from other works that they have already prepared without citing themselves is considered self-plagiarism. It is essential that the document does not have the same coincidences of works that are already published by the authors themselves.

Journal nor does it accept articles that show excessive use of self-citations and intentional manipulation of citations.

The fabrication of results : is caused by displaying data invented by the authors; falsification results when data is manipulated and changed at the whim of the authors; The omission occurs when the authors deliberately hide a fact or data. Journal  is guided by international standards on intellectual property and copyright, in order to avoid cases of fabrication, falsification, omission of data and plagiarism.

Concurrent, multiple or redundant publication: In general, an author should not publish manuscripts that describe essentially the same research published 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. In general, an author should not submit a previously published article for consideration by another journal. The publication of some types of articles (for example, methodological guides, translations) in more than one journal is justifiable in some cases as long as specific conditions are met. The authors and editors of the interested journals must agree to the secondary publication, which must reflect the same data and interpretation of the primary document. The primary reference must be cited in the secondary publication.

Acknowledgment of sources: Appropriate recognition should always be given to the work of others. Authors should cite publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the work reported. Information obtained privately, such as in conversations, correspondence or discussions with third parties, should not be used or reported without explicit written permission from the source. Information obtained in the course of confidential services, such as referee manuscripts or grant applications, should not be used without the express written permission of the author of the work from which the information is taken.

The authorship of the document: It must be limited to a maximum of three authors (if they are from the same country or institution), it can be five (if they are from different countries or institutions), who have made a significant contribution in all stages of construction of the article. . If there are other people involved in the research, they must be acknowledged and listed as contributors in the Acknowledgments section. The lead author must ensure that all co-authors have reviewed and approved the final version of the document. It is expected that people who did not participate in the described activities do not appear as authors; Those who have only participated in part of these can appear in the acknowledgments section. We invite you to see the COPE authorship manual.

Conflict of interest: All authors must disclose in their manuscript any substantive financial or other conflict of interest that may arise in the results or interpretation of their manuscript. All sources of financial support for the project must have the credits that correspond to them. Some examples of potential conflicts of interest that must be disclosed include employment, consultancies or consultancies, stock ownership, honoraria, paid expert testimony, patent applications, registrations, and fellowships or other funding. Potential conflicts of interest should be made public at the earliest possible stage of the editorial process.

Fundamental errors in published works: When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in his published article, it is his obligation to immediately notify the Editor of the journal or to the Editorial Committee and cooperate with the Editor to withdraw or correct the document. If the Editor learns from a third party that a published work contains a significant error, it is the Editor's obligation to briefly correct the article and provide proof to the author of the correctness of the original document.

Authors must complete and send the following Forms:

Format #6 Copyright Assignment Statement

Format #7 Conflict of interest

Format #8 Compliance with ethical and scientific principles

Finally, when a work is submitted to the Journal , the authors guarantee that:

- That the article has not been accepted for evaluation in another journal, nor has it been previously published, nor is it in the process of review in another journal or is found in any other digital repository.

- All authors confirm that they have reviewed and approved the final version of the document.

- If accepted, the work cannot be reproduced in another place or language without citing the journal.

-The authors authorize the journal to carry out an anti-plagiarism evaluation, using specialized software of the submitted work.

-That, if the publication of a previous version as working paper (or 'gray literature') has been reported on a website, and if its publication is accepted, it will be removed from the Internet site, where Only the title, abstract, keywords and hyperlink to the journal will be left.

-That once published in Ius et tribunalis It will not be published in another Journal , memory, or other media.

We invite authors to review existing guidelines regarding the most common authorship issues faced by COPE members.

From the peer reviewers:

The following considerations stand out:

The Editor and the Editorial Committee of the journal will invite the researchers most related to the area of ​​the submitted works. However, if the peer considers that he or she does not meet the profile, does not have the time, or presents a conflict of interest to evaluate a document, he or she must let it be known so that the Editorial Committee assigns another person to evaluate the work.

The evaluator must present a concept that is as clear, objective and rigorous as possible, so that the Editorial Committee can make the decision on the acceptance or rejection of a document.

The documents sent to the evaluators, by the Journal  Ius et tribunalis They are confidential and, therefore, their review is limited to evaluative purposes. Citing these as unpublished manuscripts or using their contents before publication constitutes inappropriate and unauthorized use.

Referees: The evaluation committee is made up of professionals with extensive experience and academic recognition in the topics discussed in each article. The evaluation criteria are: originality of the content; conceptual rigor; methodological problems; clarity and coherence, both in the argument and in the exposition; the quality of sources and references; contributions to knowledge; proper preparation of the summary; title of relevance and conclusions. This ensures that articles published in Ius et tribunalis are of excellent quality.

Duties of peers:

Ius et tribunalis recommends that arbitrators see the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers

Contribution to editorial decisions: Peer review helps the editor in making editorial decisions and the author to improve the writing and scientific quality of the document. Peer review is a key component of scholarly communication and lies at the core of the scientific method. Ius et tribunalis shares the opinion that researchers who wish to contribute to publications have the obligation to participate fairly in peer review processes.

Punctuality: Any selected referee who does not feel qualified to review the article must promptly inform that it is impossible for them to carry out their review, informing the editor of their decision.

Confidentiality: All manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They should not be presented to or discussed with third parties except as authorized by the publisher. The arbitration process is carried out in the double-blind peer review modality, guaranteeing the confidentiality and anonymity of the authors and referees. In case of discrepancy between one of the two evaluators, the text will be sent to a third referee, whose decision will define its publication.

Objectivity standards: Comments must be carried out objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Arbitrators must express their points of view clearly, supported by arguments.

Appropriate recognition of sources: Reviewers should identify relevant published works that have not been cited by the authors. Any statement, observation, derivation, or argument that has been previously recorded must be accompanied by the corresponding citation. A reviewer should also bring the editor's attention to any substantial or partial similarity between the manuscript under consideration and any other published document of which they are aware.

Disclosure of conflicts of interest: Unpublished materials revealed in an article submitted in the selection process must not be used in the reviewers' own research without the express written consent of the author. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and will not be used for personal gain. Reviewers should not evaluate articles in which they have conflicts of interest that result from competitive, collaborative or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies or institutions related to the texts to be evaluated.

Additional materials for evaluators

1. https://publicationethics.org/files/Who_owns_peer_reviews_discussion_document.pdf
2. https://youtu.be/JxStMmN0Rk8
3. http://senseaboutscience.org/activities/peer-review-the-nuts-and-bolts/
4. Guide for COPE reviewers

Handling possible bad practices

1. As soon as the journal is alerted to possible unethical behavior by any author or reviewer, the Editor will immediately initiate an appropriate and thorough investigation. The accused will be given an opportunity to defend his actions and explain his position. Based on the available evidence, if the violation is determined to be minor, the Editor will give the accused a stern written warning not to commit the violation again in the future.
2. However, if it is determined that the non-compliance is serious, the Editor will inform the editorial advisors of Ius et tribunalis and a proper and thorough investigation will be initiated. The accused will be given an adequate opportunity to respond to any allegations of misconduct. Based on the available evidence, if the defendant is found guilty of misconduct, then, in addition to a stern warning note, the defendant's employer will be notified of the incident and/or the offender will be permanently banned.
3. In the event that the available evidence does not lead to the conclusion of misconduct, the accused will be notified in writing of the conclusion of the investigation.
4. When dealing with unethical behavior, Ius et tribunalis will not discriminate against any defendant based on race, religion, gender, age, ethnicity, political ideology, sexual orientation, country of origin, etc. All complaints will be taken seriously and treated accordingly until a final decision or conclusion is reached.
5. The investigation process will be carried out in such a way that the details of the incident do not extend beyond those people who have a need to know.

Process for authors to file an appeal: Complaints may arise about the conduct of editors and/or peer reviewers (e.g., breaches of confidentiality, undisclosed conflicts of interest, or misuse of privileged information), or may arise of disputes over substantive decisions, such as retractions. Others may be more administrative in nature (e.g. irregularities in editorial processes or complaints that journal staff does not respond). Journal  will apply COPE recommendations and guidelines to respond to suspected ethical misconduct and will also consider the following recommendations (see link)