Code of Ethics and Good Editorial Practices

Purpose and references

REMAP understands editorial integrity as a condition for public trust in the knowledge it publishes. For this reason, it makes explicit the responsibilities of those involved at each stage of the editorial process, as well as the procedures through which it addresses situations that may compromise that integrity. This document takes the Core Practices of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) as its main reference and is aligned with the recommendations of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), insofar as they are applicable to the social sciences. For work involving human participants or sensitive data, the journal also observes internationally recognized ethical principles for research.

This code should be read together with the journal's peer review policy, originality and similarity screening policy, artificial intelligence use policy, and copyright and licensing policy. Its implementation is the responsibility of REMAP's Editor, with the support of the Editorial Committee.

Responsibilities of authors

Authors who submit a manuscript to REMAP assume that their contribution is original and unpublished, that it is the result of their own research, and that it is not simultaneously under consideration by another journal or editorial body. The journal accepts prior versions deposited as preprints when authors declare this at the time of submission, in accordance with the originality policy.

Authorship must correspond to a substantive intellectual contribution to the work. The order of authors reflects an agreement among all authors, and the journal does not accept honorary authorship or the omission of individuals who made a relevant contribution. Any change in authorship after submission must be communicated to the Editor with the consent of all persons involved.

Authors undertake not to engage in plagiarism or self-plagiarism, not to fabricate or falsify data or results, and not to manipulate citations in order to artificially increase references to their own work or to that of third parties. Sources must be cited fully and verifiably, and the data and materials on which the research is based should be made available when reasonably requested by the journal or the academic community, except where legal restrictions or data protection requirements prevent this.

All authors must declare conflicts of interest of any kind that may have influenced the research or its interpretation, as well as the sources of funding that made it possible. The use of artificial intelligence tools at any stage of the work must be declared in accordance with the journal's specific policy, with the understanding that responsibility for the content always rests with the authors.

Responsibilities of reviewers

Peer review is an act of academic collaboration that REMAP conducts under a double-blind model. Reviewers who agree to evaluate a manuscript undertake to treat it as a confidential document, not to share it or use it for personal benefit, and not to upload it, in whole or in part, to external tools that do not guarantee such confidentiality, including artificial intelligence tools.

Reviewers are expected to provide a well-founded, respectful assessment aimed at strengthening the manuscript, with reasoned observations rather than disqualifying statements. Reviewers must declare to the Editor any conflict of interest that may compromise their impartiality and must decline to review a manuscript when they recognize its authorship or have a relationship that affects their independence. If they identify indications of plagiarism, questionable data, or other breaches of integrity, they must notify the Editor for appropriate action.

Responsibilities of the Editor and the Editorial Committee

The Editor of REMAP decides on the publication of manuscripts based on their academic quality, their relevance to the field, and the outcome of peer review, without influence from the origin, affiliation, nationality, gender, orientation, beliefs, or positions of the authors. The journal safeguards the confidentiality of manuscripts and of reviewers' identities, and limits access to information about the process to those directly involved in it.

When a member of the editorial team is the author of a submitted manuscript, that person is excluded from all decisions concerning the manuscript, which is assigned to another member of the Committee in order to ensure impartiality. The Editor ensures that processes are conducted transparently and within the stated timeframes, and promotes the continuous improvement of the journal's editorial practices.

Handling misconduct

REMAP addresses breaches of academic integrity following, as guidance, COPE flowcharts and procedures. When there is an indication of plagiarism, self-plagiarism, duplicate or redundant publication, fabrication or falsification of data, citation manipulation, or inappropriate authorship, the Editor opens an inquiry, communicates the situation to the authors, and offers them the opportunity to respond before a decision is made. Similarity screening is conducted in accordance with the journal's originality policy.

Depending on the seriousness of the case and the stage at which it is detected, actions may range from requesting corrections to rejecting the manuscript and, when the work has already been published, to issuing a correction, an expression of concern, or a retraction. The journal keeps a record of these actions.

Corrections, expressions of concern, and retractions

REMAP corrects errors identified in published works through an erratum when the error is minor and does not affect the results, or through a formal correction when it does affect them. It publishes an expression of concern when there are well-founded doubts about the integrity of a work that have not yet been clarified, and proceeds to retract a publication when a breach is confirmed that compromises the validity or honesty of the publication. These actions are made public, linked to the original article, and maintain the record of the document in order to preserve the traceability of the journal's archive, in line with COPE retraction guidelines.

Complaints and appeals

Any person may submit a complaint concerning the content, processes, or editorial conduct of the journal to REMAP's institutional email address. The Editor acknowledges receipt, examines the matter, and communicates a reasoned response within a reasonable timeframe. Authors who disagree with an editorial decision may submit a reasoned appeal; the Editor assesses it and, when deemed appropriate, requests an additional opinion before reaching a decision. The decision on the appeal is communicated with reasons.

Conflicts of interest

The journal understands a conflict of interest as any economic, professional, institutional, or personal circumstance that may compromise, or appear to compromise, the objectivity of those involved in the editorial process. Authors, reviewers, and the editorial team have a duty to declare such circumstances when they arise, so that the journal may manage them transparently.

Confidentiality and personal data

Information associated with a manuscript under review is confidential and is used only for editorial purposes. The processing of users' personal data is governed by the journal's privacy statement and by the applicable university regulations.

Validity and updating

This code enters into force upon publication and is reviewed periodically to keep it aligned with the evolution of good editorial practices. Questions about its content or application may be directed to the Editor of REMAP at remap@ugto.mx.

References

Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), Core Practices. https://publicationethics.org/core-practices

COPE, Retraction Guidelines. https://publicationethics.org/retraction-guidelines

International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), Recommendations. https://www.icmje.org/recommendations/