Code of Ethics

The Ethics and Best Practice Statement of the Revista Ítalo-española de Derecho Procesal is inspired by the current guidelines established by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) to provide an ethical approach to the publication of scientific works. The Editorial Board of the Journal shares the COPE's recommendations aimed at taking all possible measures to combat malpractice and ensure good ethical practices in the publication process. All those involved in the process (Editorial Board, authors, and reviewers) should be informed and share the following ethical principles.

DUTIES OF THE EDITORIAL BOARD

• Decision on publication
  • The Editorial Board is responsible for deciding whether to publish articles submitted to the Journal.
  • After having previously evaluated its publication, the Editorial Board will submit the work to two anonymous reviews (double-blind peer review) carried out by expert reviewers.
  • In its decisions, the Editorial Board will respect the journal's editorial strategies and approach. It is also subject to existing laws on libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism.
• Fairness and non-discrimination
  The Editorial Board decides solely on the basis of the scientific value, relevance and originality of the content of the article without discrimination on the basis of sex, race, gender, religion, ethnic origin, citizenship, sexual orientation, gender identity, age or political orientation of the authors.
• Confidentiality and prohibition of use or disclosure
  • The Editorial Board undertakes not to disclose information about articles proposed for publication to persons other than the author, reviewers, editor or printer, and undertakes not to use the content of unpublished articles for its own research without the express written consent of the author.
  • The journal employs the double-blind peer review process to ensure that the material submitted is kept strictly confidential during the review process, i.e. neither the reviewers know who the authors are nor vice versa.
  • The members of the Editorial Board identify the reviewers on the basis of their competence to make an appropriate assessment of the article for publication.
• Declaration of conflict of interest
  Board members must declare any conflict of interest that may affect the objectivity with which they must carry out their duties. In such cases, board members shall withdraw from the evaluation and reviewer selection process.
• Correction of errors and/or inaccuracies
  When it comes to the attention of the Editorial Board that a paper published by the Journal contains errors and/or inaccuracies, steps will be taken to correct them as soon as possible (see next section).

DUTIES OF AUTHORS OF ARTICLES SUBMITTED TO THE JOURNAL

• Scientific originality
  • The author guarantees that the article submitted for evaluation is unpublished, scientifically original, and not submitted at the same time to other journals, volumes or periodicals without the express consent of the Editorial Board.
  • If the article is subsequently published in other journals or volumes, the Revista Ítalo-española de Derecho Procesal must be informed and give its consent to this, without prejudice to the following publication making express reference to the publication in the Revista Ítalo-española de Derecho Procesal.
  • The author must indicate whether the work submitted for evaluation is a translation of another article already published. In this case, the bibliographical references of the original text should be included in the first footnote.
  • The author is also required to properly cite the texts used following the editorial rules indicated for publication in the Journal, taking care that the work and/or words of other authors are adequately paraphrased or quoted literally with the appropriate indication of the sources. Authors must follow the editorial rules of the Journal.
• Integration of the work
  • The Editorial Board may request authors to make any corrections and additions it deems appropriate, also after anonymous evaluation by the reviewers. In certain cases, the Editorial Board may pass on the aforementioned anonymous review to the author.
  • Authors may express their comments or objections in this respect, which will then be decided by the Editorial Board.
  • The Editorial Board reserves the right to make purely editorial changes after the first proofreading, in order to ensure the formal homogeneity of the Journal's publication.
• Authorship and participation
  • Authorship of the paper must be clearly indicated. Any person who has made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution, interpretation or writing of the work must be considered the author.
  • In collective works, all those who have made a significant contribution to the creation of the article should be listed as co-authors.
    In these cases, the criterion chosen to decide the order of signature must be indicated and the participation of each author must be clearly stated.
    The consent of all co-authors must be obtained to submit the work for evaluation.
  • If other persons who cannot be considered authors have participated in the work submitted for evaluation, their contribution should be explicitly recognised in the acknowledgements section.
  • Authorship of the work implies assumption of responsibility for all aspects of the work.
• Declaration of conflict of interest
  • The author must not have any conflict of interest that may have affected the results obtained, the arguments put forward or the interpretations proposed. In the event that the author has doubts about the existence of such a conflict, he/she must disclose it.
  • In the event that the work submitted is the result of a research project, the author must indicate in the acknowledgements of the work, its code number, as well as its funding agencies.
• Correction of errors and/or inaccuracies
  • If an author identifies a significant error or inaccuracy in one of his/her articles, he/she should immediately inform the Journal and provide all the necessary information to make the necessary changes, so that the corresponding correction can be published.
  • The author must also provide for the correction of the paper by actively collaborating with the editor, if the correction comes from the Editorial Board of the Journal, unless otherwise agreed.
• Acceptance of all the duties
  The submission of a paper to the Journal implies the acceptance and observance of all the duties outlined in this section.

DUTIES OF THE REVIEWERS

• Participation to the editorial decision
  Peer review is a process to confirm the evaluation of the scientific quality of proposed articles. It also allows the author to improve his or her contribution. The peer review process can be consulted in the section Peer review.
• Deadlines’ compliance
  • Reviewers must observe the deadlines established by the Journal for the evaluation of papers.
  • A reviewer who does not feel comfortable or sufficiently qualified for the task of reviewing the paper or considers himself/herself unable to fulfil the task within the indicated deadline, should inform the Editorial Board as soon as possible, withdrawing from the review process.
• Correctness and impartiality
  • Peer review must be conducted in a correct and impartial manner. The reviewer is requested to justify his or her assessment of the paper in an appropriate and documented manner.
  • Any personal judgment will be considered inappropriate. It is strictly forbidden to make personal comments on the author. Comments must be adequately written and cannot be framed as ideological criticism or include cultural prejudices of a personal nature.
  • Each statement, observation or argument made should preferably be accompanied by its corresponding citation and/or documentation.
• References
  • The reviewer is entitled to highlight references that are substantial but have not been taken into consideration in the paper.
  • The reviewer is expected to provide information on any similarity of the paper with others of his or her knowledge.
• Conflict of interest and confidentiality
  • Papers received should be treated as confidential documents. They must not be shown to or discussed with anyone without prior authorisation from the Editorial Board.
  • Information obtained during the peer review process must be considered reliable and confidential. The data, arguments and/or interpretations contained in the papers submitted for review must not be used by the reviewers for their own benefit. The paper must be destroyed if, as a result of the peer review, it is rejected for publication.
  • The reviewer is obliged to reject the review of papers where there is a conflict of interest due to his or her relationship of either collaboration or concurrence with the author – in principle unknown due to the blind process but inferred from the paper – and/or connections with the author or entities involved in the paper. In case the reviewer has doubts about the effective concurrence of such a conflict, he/she should disclose it.

PROMOTION OF HONEST CONDUCT AND TRANSPARENCY

The Journal follows the COPE’s Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing.

Likewise, in the presence of bad practices, such as plagiarism or any other fraudulent action, the Journal will follow the action protocols established by COPE. In this regard, the measures to be adopted by the Editorial Board will range from the publication of a correction to the removal of the paper, in the most serious cases.

Anyone who considers that a paper published by the Journal has not been carried out in accordance with these ethical guidelines should send an email to rivitsproc@gmail.com. Reported issues will be dealt with according to COPE guidelines.