Ethical standards

Ethics of publication

The ReChTO is dedicated to the publication of articles under the highest standards of quality and ethics. We maintain these standards of ethical behavior at all stages of publication and with all members of our journal, including: the author, the editorial team of the journal, the evaluator and the publisher. Plagiarism or any other unethical behavior is strictly prohibited, with the penalties set forth below.

Editorial Team Responsibilities

• Selection of publication: The editorial team of the ReChTO is responsible for the selection of articles that will be published in the journal. The editorial team must comply with the ethical standards of the journal and with all legal guidelines, including, but not limited to, those that do not allow defamation, copyright infringement and plagiarism. The editorial team is free to discuss decisions related to the selection of articles with the editorial board, the academic committee or an evaluator.

• Non-discrimination clause: The editorial team will review manuscripts and make decisions about articles, regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, religious beliefs, ethnicity, nationality, or political ideology.

• Confidentiality Agreement: The editorial team and any member of the editorial team are prohibited from disclosing information about the manuscript sent to persons other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial counselors, or editorial.

• Transparency and Interests: The editorial team is prohibited from using unpublished material in their own research unless he / she has obtained the express written consent of the author. The editorial team should refrain from manuscripts that represent a conflict of interest as a result of any possible connection, whether competitive or mutual, with institutions, companies, authors, etc. Responsibilities of evaluators / reviewers • Confidentiality: Any manuscript submitted for review should be considered a confidential document. This manuscript should not be discussed or presented to third parties or individuals.

• Timeliness: Due to time constraints to review articles, reviewers should inform the publisher and reject the review of an article in the event that he / she knows they will not be able to review the material in a timely manner, or If he / she does not have sufficient knowledge on the subject of the article.

• Requirements for objectivity: Critical review must be done in a neutral way and opinions must articulate observations based on reasonable arguments. • Editorial Evaluation: Evaluations provide critical information for the publisher and for the decision-making process. Reviewers can also help publishers by communicating with authors and offering suggestions for improving the article through editorial communication. • Recognition of sources: Evaluators should consider and report published material that is not cited by the author. Likewise, make evident the existence of some similarity between the published articles and the manuscript under consideration, without the necessary references.

• Transparency and interests: private information or ideas collected through peer review should remain private and not be used for the benefit of the evaluator. Evaluators should refrain from manuscripts that represent a conflict of interest as a result of any possible connection, whether competitive or mutual, with institutions, companies, authors, etc.

Responsibilities of authorship

• Principles of research: Those who own the article are responsible for presenting the original research, a truthful description of the work required for an article, and an objective discussion of the importance of the results. Key facts should be frankly explained in the article. The written report should include sufficient details and references so that others may repeat the investigation. Deliberately false or incorrect statements constitute unethical activities and will not be tolerated.

• Indications for the ethical aspects of the research: when the publication involves research involving human beings, the methodology section should state the ethical scope of the study, such as: informed consent process, proportionality between risks and benefits of the study and the Authorization of the ethical evaluation committee of the institution of affiliation of the authors.

• Redundant, large or simultaneous publication: Generally speaking, an author should not attempt to publish identical materials by basically delineating research in more than one journal or other primary publication. The presentation of the same subject matter in several journals and / or the publication of the same work in various journals comprises unethical publication behavior and will not be tolerated by the editorial team.

• Authenticity and plagiarism: Authors must guarantee that they will submit completely original works, and that the text or materials that the authors have used is referred to correctly. Plagiarism in any form is unethical editorial behavior and will not be tolerated.

• Authorship of the article: Authorship belongs to those individuals who contributed considerably to the formation, design, execution, or understanding of the article. All individuals who contributed significantly to the article should be mentioned as co-authors. Other people who contributed to other substantive parts of the research should be recognized or featured as contributors. The lead author has the responsibility to include all co-authors and collaborators in the paper and to ensure that all co-authors have reviewed and approved the final version of the document and consented to its submission for publication.

• Recognition of sources: proper recognition of the work of other authors in the article is required. Authors should include the publications of those who influenced the formation of the substance of their work. Private investigation, such as conversation, communication, or dialogue with third parties, is prohibited, except in the case of explicit written permission of such individuals. Information collected through confidential methods such as revisions of the manuscript or grant applications is prohibited, except in the case of the explicit and written permission of the author providing such services.

• Transparency and interests: All authors must disclose in their final manuscript any financial or other financial conflicts that could interfere with the results and interpretations in their investigations. All funding for the project must be disclosed.

• Fundamental Errors in Published Research: When an author realizes a fundamental lack or inaccuracy in his own published research, the author is required to immediately notify the editor or publisher and help to retrieve or correct his article. Non-ethical conduct management method Recognition of unethical conduct When misconduct and unethical actions are identified, they should be reported to the editor and editor. Misconduct and unethical actions include, but are not limited to, the examples described above, such as plagiarism or falsification of full or partial investigation. The informant of unethical conduct must provide sufficient information and evidence to initiate an investigation. All complaints must be seriously considered and treated in a similar manner, until a corresponding outcome or agreement is achieved. Investigation The editor is responsible for choosing the appropriate form of investigation of the ethical misconduct of the job postulant and may request the advice of the editorial committee, the academic committee, or the evaluator in making this choice. Evidence must be gathered in a way that will not ignite the situation and the proliferation of allegations. Sanctions (in order of gravity) Notify the author or evaluator of a misunderstanding or misapplication of the ethical standards of the journal in his article. Writing a letter or statement addressed to the author expressing unethical behavior and issuing a warning. Publication of a formal observation with details of inappropriate behavior. Publishing an editorial comment detailing inappropriate behavior. Removal and formal removal of the papers in question from the journal, along with notifying the supervisor of the author or group of reviewers, and the publication hearing. Enforce a formal embargo on author submissions for a set period of time.