Declaración de ética y malas prácticas

"Engineering Profiles" is committed to maintaining the highest standards of ethics in all its publications, which is why there is an urgent need for an agreement on principles of ethical behavior for all parties involved in the act of publication: the author, reviewers, editor and the publisher. 

The criteria of the editorial work are based on the postulates promulgated by:

And in the following statements and documents:

For this lawsuit, this Statement of Publication Ethics and Bad Publication Practices is established.

I. STATEMENT OF PUBLICATION ETHICS

The actions of each of those involved in the article publication process are established:

1. The author. His responsibilities are:

1.1. The authorship of the article.

It covers the participants who have contributed and/or participated substantially in the published article; this is reflected in the order that the authors occupy in the manuscript. These assume responsibility for the contents of the research to be published. While the editorial process lasts, the manuscripts should not be sent to another journal. They cannot cite the sources consulted during the development of the research work or the preparation of the manuscript sent to the journal. They cannot modify or fabricate the data used and/or obtained in the research. Likewise, they must submit the 02 mandatory formats along with the manuscript:

  • Format 1 - Author data

  • Format 2  - Affidavit on originality and authorization for the publication of articles.

  • Format 3 - Open Science Compliance.

The main author must ensure that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the article, as well as agree to its presentation for publication. The inclusion of other authors, who have not made contributions to the research, is considered inappropriate and will not be allowed; Knowing it can have negative results such as: removing it from the list of authors or removing the article from publication. At any time during the article evaluation process, original documentation can be requested from any of the authors for editorial review. If for any reason a negligent or malpractice process is detected, it will mean a violation of publication ethics and will violate the originality and honesty of the article, which is specified in the next section (b. Originality and plagiarism).

The handling of these subjects in research must be respectful of their rights, their specific characteristics in society and the legal regulations that may exist depending on their nationality. Authors must be careful not to expose them to public judgment, much less mention their personal data that could lead to their identification by readers of the publications.

The rights to the final version of the article correspond to the journal to subsequently publish it and provide public access under the Licencia Creative Commons Atribution 4.0 (CC BY 4.0).

These rights allow you to share, copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format and to adapt, remix, transform and build upon the material for any purpose, including commercially.

1.2. Originality and plagiarism.

Authors must clearly, transparently and accurately present the process of their original research work and the document must contain sufficient corresponding details of its development. Authors must ensure that they have written completely original works, and if they have used the study and/or words of others, these must be referred to and cited. Any type of data, texts, figures or ideas originated by the authors must be cited and referred to objectively in the article without expressing lies, falsification or manipulation of inappropriate data. All of the above can be considered a negligent process and malpractice.

Plagiarism in all its forms and fraudulent or intentionally inaccurate statements establish unethical conduct and are inadmissible and will indicate malpractice in the way the submitted article is conceived. Authors must guarantee the accuracy and authenticity of the data and information they provide. Any published article in which a negligent process is detected will be informed to the author or authors, leaving a corresponding note in the journal's records, and the article will be immediately removed from the publication. Authors are responsible for using appropriate wording in the article before submitting it.

The editorial committee verifies the originality of the published articles and has an anti-plagiarism policy that ensures that all research works are unpublished. In this sense, it uses the Turnitin software, which allows checking for inappropriate citations or plagiarism by comparing it with one of the largest academic databases in the world, in order to guarantee transparency in the information and the originality of all manuscripts. This obliges the author to examine his manuscript in detail, in order to avoid plagiarism and strengthen academic integrity. If a 20% similarity is identified (in the information contained in the submitted article) with another writing, previously published in this or another journal, the editorial committee must send a written communication to the author or authors and grant them a reasonable period of time. 20 calendar days, to respond to the situation and assume the respective legal responsibility, which would imply the non-publication of the text.

The authors cannot declare information obtained privately, in conversation, correspondence, or by any other means; Additionally, if the research has procedures that have any risks inherent to their use, the author must identify them in the manuscript, and a statement of informed consent that was obtained from the experimentation with human subjects will be presented.

Engineering Profiles is governed by the regulations of the Copyright Law, which is governed by Legislative Decree No. 822 of April 23, 1996, in order to safeguard the intellectual property of the authors of the manuscripts exposed to arbitration.

1.3. Multiple, redundant or concurrent publication.

Authors must ensure that:

1. Submission of a manuscript to more than one scientific journal.

2. The manuscript has not been published in any other journal.

3. The presentation with the knowledge and approval of the institution of the authors' affiliation, if necessary.

1.4. Disclosure and conflicts of interest.

Authors must indicate in detail in the manuscript if there is any type of conflict of interest to be submitted for evaluation. Conflicts of interest can be moral, economic, labor or research. Potential conflicts of interest should be made public at the earliest possible stage.

1.5. Errors in published works.

When an author discovers an error in a published article, it is his or her obligation to immediately notify the journal's editor, as well as cooperate to retract or correct the manuscript. If the editor receives from a third party that a published article contains an important error or observation, the editor will immediately notify the author, and the author will immediately resolve it.

1.6. Participation in the double-blind peer review process.

The author must agree to participate in the double-blind peer review process of their article, as well as to comply with the recommendations of the reviewers and members of the journal's editorial board. Refusal to comply with the recommendations may result in rejection of the submitted article. All authors must correct errors and retractions in the manuscript.

2. External reviewers.

The responsibilities of the reviewers are related to:

2.1. Norms of objectivity.

Reviewers, in addition to supporting the editor in making editorial decisions, must contribute to the authors in improving their manuscript. Reviews must be fair, and there can be no personal criticism. Reviewers must express their points of view objectively, clearly and honestly with supporting arguments; they must present evaluation reports clearly within the established deadline.

Reviewers will evaluate manuscripts based on their content without taking into account the ethnic origin, gender, sexual orientation, nationality, religious belief or political philosophy of the authors.

2.2. Disclosure and conflict of interest.

Reviewers cannot evaluate manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from personal, competitive, or collaborative relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions related to the manuscript.

23. Peer review and the responsibility of collaborators.

All articles will be evaluated under a double-blind peer review process, where the reviewers and authors do not know each other. In turn, there can be no connection between them regarding the manuscript under review, nor between the reviewers and the author. Confidentiality will be respected between the reviewers of the article, and between the reviewers and the author.

All reviewers must be specialists in their area of ​​research to review an article. They must not use inappropriate or vulgar language in their report and must submit them in a timely manner. The reviewer must be objective and impartial in the review of a manuscript.

Stages of the evaluation process:

First instance, the manuscripts received are evaluated by the Editorial Committee, considering the subject matter, form and relevance of the article (15 business days). If these do not meet the criteria required by the journal, they will not be able to continue with the editorial process. However, if the requirements are met, the manuscript continues the evaluation process.

Second instance, the articles are sent to two external evaluators, considered experts in the subject, having a maximum of 20 working days to submit their reports, using the Evaluation Form.

This evaluation work is carried out under the peer review modality (double blind). The article is sent to the evaluators without the identity of the authors or any other data that refers to them. In the event that there is no coherence between the evaluations, a third evaluation is carried out, following the same double-blind scheme.

The reviewers must communicate to the editor any information that may be grounds for rejection of the publication of a manuscript. In addition, they must report any infringement and/or plagiarism by the author.

The reviewers must identify information that has not been cited by the authors and report any aspect resulting from their evaluation.

The reviewers will reach one of the following conclusions:

  • The manuscript is ready to be published.

  • The manuscript is ready to be published.Approved with minor corrections: the manuscript requires minor adjustments to be accepted. The authors would have two weeks to address the adjustments and then resubmit a new corrected version.

  • The manuscript is ready to be published.The manuscript is ready to be published.Approved with major correction: the manuscript requires major adjustments to be accepted. The authors would have four weeks to address the adjustments and then resubmit a new corrected version. The Editor may ask the authors if they are willing to correct the article and, if not, may reject the manuscript at this time.

  • The manuscript is ready to be published.The manuscript is not suitable for publication according to the scientific quality standards of the Journal and therefore must be rejected.

The Evaluation Report issued by the reviewers will be sent to the authors, with the request for modifications to be made.

The Editorial Committee would make a consensual decision based on the recommendations of the external reviewers; if necessary or contradictory, another peer review opinion would be requested.

Many rounds of review may be carried out until a final consensual recommendation of ACCEPT is reached. At that time, the Editor would notify the authors of the final result of the process and the article would move on to the final stages of production (correction and layout).

It is necessary to carry out the evaluation process through the OJS system. We recommend consulting the Review Process.

3. The associate editors and the main editor.

3.1 Associate editors.

The editors' responsibilities are related to:

3.1.1. Norms of objectivity.

Associate editors must oversee a double-blind peer review process for all articles submitted for publication and avoid any potential conflict of interest between the author, publisher, and reviewers. They must ensure that all information related to the submitted articles is kept confidential before publishing.

They will take reasonable response measures when there are ethical complaints in relation to an article submitted to the journal. These measures will include contact with the author(s) of the manuscript, and following up on the respective complaint or claim made, but may also include communication with the competent research institutions, and if the complaint has effect, a publication of correction and/or retraction, or withdrawal of the article if it has already been published. Every reported act of unethical behavior in an article will be examined, even if this is some time after the article was published.

3.1.2. Publication decisions.

Associate editors are responsible for deciding which of the articles submitted to the journal should be published or rejected. They will evaluate the manuscripts according to their knowledge of the content of the article, without distinction of race, gender, sexual orientation, religious beliefs, ethnic origin, nationality, or the political philosophy of the authors and pay special attention to the development of the manuscripts on their structure. and the elements that are part of the article.

3.1.3. Disclosure and conflicts of interest.

Unpublished materials revealed in a manuscript submitted to the journal should not be used without the express consent of the author. Information obtained through peer review must be confidential.

Associate editors will decline to act on articles that may have conflicts of interest as a result of personal relationships or competitive, collaborative and/or other connections with authors, companies or institutions in relation to the manuscripts.

It is very important that associate editors exclude the identity of the author(s) from the manuscript before submitting said manuscript to the double-blind peer review process by external reviewers.

3.2 The main editor.

The responsibilities of the main editor are:

The lead editor will coordinate the work of all editors and has the authority to make the final decision on the acceptance and/or rejection of a submitted manuscript. This is done after reviewing the evaluation reports and consulting with the other members of the editorial board. The main editor must not have any conflict of interest with respect to any article under evaluation and must maintain the anonymity of the external reviewers, as well as that of the author during the review process.

It is very important that the main editor monitors the fulfillment of the responsibilities of the associate editors, and follows up when an error, negligent procedure or bad practice, among others, is detected, decides how much corrections and clarifications should be made. , retractions and/or apologies if necessary in any published article, in an open, clear and precise manner, taking into account, at all times, the evidence presented.

4. The publishing house.

Research Institute of the School of Communication Sciences of the San Martín de Porres University, located at 5440 Benavides Avenue - Santiago de Surco Lima – Peru, Responsible editor: Mg. Francisca Teresa Salinas Gamero, as editor of the magazine "Perfiles de Ingeniería", takes very seriously its duties of guardianship over all editing and publication steps of the magazine, and recognizes its ethical responsibilities to guarantee adequate advertising in the magazine.

If useful and necessary, a comprehensive internal evaluation of the editing and publication processes would be put into practice in favor of the magazine's readers and collaborators. The publisher endorses and behaves in accordance with the content of this Statement of Ethics and Malpractice.

5. Payment of authors and reviewers.

The authors will not be asked for any type of payment related to the processes of sending, evaluating and publishing the articles in the regular editions of the journal, nor will the external reviewers receive any payment for carrying out the evaluation of the articles in double-blind peer review processes.

 

II. STATEMENT OF BAD PUBLICATION PRACTICES

To everything previously stated, in aspect I, is added the importance of highlighting that the EDITORIAL TEAM of the magazine (director and Main Editor) will provide primary attention to any negligent and/or malpractice procedure. If the above is discovered at any time after publication of the article in the journal, it will be removed from publication immediately for not being in accordance with the ethical principles of the journal. The above includes plagiarism, falsification (manipulation of research in terms of data, tables, images, ideas, existing conclusions, among others), fabrication of research (which constitute research data), duplicating editing, I any other negligence.

The journal adheres to the principles and procedures dictated by the Committee on Publication Ethics COPE. Therefore, this Declaration of Publication Ethics and Bad Publication Practices for all authors and professionals involved in the act of publication in the journal “Perfiles de Ingeniería” is a description based on these principles.

This Declaration of Publication Ethics and Bad Publication Practices was approved by all professionals participating in the publication of this magazine Perfiles de Ingeniería, and is made public, through this document, for the knowledge of all authors, readers , collaborators, reviewers and those interested in the journal's publication processes.