Declaración ética

STATEMENT OF PUBLICATION ETHICS

Pléyade's publication ethics statement is based on the best practice guidelines developed by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) available at http://publicationethics.org/.

In order to ensure that submitted articles are unpublished publications that have not been previously published and that the texts do not contain plagiarism, Pléyade will use the DOCODE anti-plagiarism detection software: https://docode.cl. Articles that do not meet the originality standards will be rejected.

USE DESCRIPTION AND COPYRIGHT

The journal is published by an independent non-profit organization in Chile, supported by editorial team. Unless otherwise established, all contents of the electronic edition are distributed under a license “Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial”. The journal disavows any commercial interest in the work it publishes.

The journal is committed to supporting maximum access to scholarly work without compromising quality or academic freedom. In accordance with this, the entire contents of every issue are permanently and universally available online without subscription or payment barriers.

Authors retain copyright over their work published in the journal. The journal will not re-publish any article, for example in translations, anthologies, and so on, without the author’s explicit consent. Authors grant the journal a perpetual but non-exclusive license to publish the version of scholarly record of their articles. After publication, authors are free to share their articles, or to republish them elsewhere, so long as the original publication in Pléyade is explicitly cited.

STATEMENT OF PUBLICATIONS ETHICS

The statement of the journal Pléyade’s publication ethics is based on the best practice guidelines developed by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) available at http://publicationethics.org/

Editors and Editorial Board

Each submission is managed by a chief editor from start to finish. Editors owe their assigned authors due care, fairness, and respect. That includes such performances as: honest, prompt, consistent, and polite communication; protecting the anonymity of submissions and the moral rights of authors’ over their work; managing peer-review efficiently so that authors receive a decision quickly (between 4-12 weeks), and keeping authors informed about any delays. Final decisions are made by the editor in chief. The peer-review process is not supposed to replace their judgment, but to provide expert resources to guide it. Editorial decisions will at all times be founded on academic standards, but will also take into account the practical requirements of managing an academic publication. The editorial board supports in the coordination, promotion and planning of the journal. The editorial board members propose readers or referees for articles submitted to the journal.

Authors

Authors declare that their article is not substantially similar to one that they have published previously or that is presently under consideration at any other publication; their article clearly distinguishes their own thinking from the ideas and claims developed by others, following best academic practice in their citation and referencing; all relevant legal obligations (copyright permissions, defamation, and the like) have been complied with; any substantive conflict of interest known to the author—that might lead a third party to question the neutrality of the article—has been declared to the editor in chief. The editors may reject a submission without further justification if any of these declarations is false or incomplete. The journal will take no responsibility for legal liabilities resulting from authors’ failure to comply with relevant law, such as concerning copyright. In cases of multiple authors, the corresponding author is responsible for ensuring that co-authors are properly credited, and that they have been adequately informed and consulted at every stage in the publication process. If an author discovers a significant error in their article after publication, they should notify the editor immediately and cooperate in its correction or retraction.

Referees

Reviews should be conducted objectively and focus entirely on the academic content of the manuscripts. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Referees should express their views clearly with supporting arguments. Remarks intended for the author should be phrased carefully and respectfully. Review manuscripts are confidential documents: they must not be shared or discussed with others (unless with the explicit permission of the editor). The anonymity of referees will be protected by the editor, unless that right is explicitly waived by the referee. The central task for a referee is to evaluate the scholarly originality, coherence, and significance of a submission. By commissioning a review report the editors undertake to consider it seriously in coming to their decision. Nevertheless, editors make their final decisions not merely on the basis of the referees’ conclusions, but on the persuasiveness of their reasoning, especially when referees disagree in their reports. It is essential that referees explain their conclusions in a way that the editors can understand as non-experts in the topic of the submission.