Publication Ethics Policy

Ethics for publications

DOXA. Cuadernos de Filosofía del Derecho has been contributing to foster and to consolidate legal philosophical debate in Spanish. Since 1984, this Journal has been yearly released in the University of Alicante. This means 41 issues, more than 1000 works (including articles, notes, interviews). Through publication of high quality academic work, DOXA has created a legal philosophical community for the Latin World, both American and European. DOXA. Cuadernos de Filosofía del Derecho is today a standing journal that gives voice to all different legal philosophy schools of thought able to contribute to enrich the quality of ius-philosophical inquiry. Thus, authors and readers from the Academy and beyond see in this Journal a reference of high quality standards as well as a serious publication where to read and publish contributions to the eternal legal philosophical topics or to current legal philosophical topics of debate.

DOXA. Cuadernos de Filosofía del Derecho adheres to the guidelines established by EASE (European Association of Science Editors) with respect to the management, edition, revision, and publication of scientific results in journals concerning different areas of expertise.

ETHICAL COMMITMENTS

1. Ethical guidelines

  1. The authors pledge to submit only original manuscripts that had not been published earlier and that are not currently subject to any other journal’s review process. Where portions of the content overlap with published or submitted content, authors will acknowledge and cite those sources, as well as, if necessary, they will obtain permissions. Additionally, if require, authors will provide the editor with a copy of any submitted manuscript that might contain overlapping or closely related content. Author will also need: To declare any potential conflicts of interest (e.g. where the author has a competing interest (real or apparent) that could be considered or viewed as exerting an undue influence on his or her duties at any stage during the publication process); To notify promptly the journal editor or publisher if a significant error in their publication is identified; To cooperate with the editor and publisher to publish an erratum, addendum, corrigendum notice, or to retract the paper, where this is deemed necessary.

    Likewise, submitting a manuscript implies the author’s acceptance of this Journal’s rules for publication, revision, and evaluation. On the other hand DOXA. Cuadernos de Filosofía del Derecho will inform authors of submitted papers in a prompt and timely manner whether their work is accepted; will ensure that any copy-editing is respectful of authors’ style and ideas; and will give authors adequate time to see and correct the final proofs.

    Following best examples of high standard codes of good practices, this Journal rules (which will also be reproduced in each issue) are the following:

  2. Anonym peer reviewers assume the burden of carrying out, within the confines of their skills and knowledge, a critical, honest, and constructive review regarding the scientific quality of the manuscripts entrusted to them. This is the reason why each reviewer will accept to assess a manuscript only if they consider themselves sufficiently competent and if there are no conflicts of interest. Peer reviewers ought to maintain the confidentiality of any information supplied by the editor or author and not to retain or copy the manuscript. They also assume the responsibility to alert the editor of any published or submitted content that is substantially similar to that under review. Finally, peer reviewers committed to blind review need to be aware of any potential conflicts of interest (financial, institutional, collaborative or other relationships between the reviewer and author) and to alert the editor to these, if necessary withdrawing their services for that manuscript.
  3. The Directors, the members of the Redaction Board, of the Editorial Board, and of the Advisory Board pledge to be impartial and to maintain the confidentiality of the manuscripts submitted to DOXA. Cuadernos de Filosofía del Derecho, of their authors, and of the designated reviewers. All of these is done in order to let the principle of anonymity to preserve the integrity of the whole assessment process. To that effect, the selection of the most qualified reviewers and specialists will be guaranteed. The editorial team pledges to avoid any kind of conflict of interest and to strictly observe the assessment, edition, and publication deadlines that are consistent with the Journal’s periodicity.

2. Copyright

Submitting a manuscript to DOXA.Cuadernos de Filosofía del Derecho implies the acceptance of the following terms:

  1. The authors pledge to observe the above-mentioned ethical guidelines.
  2. The authors grant DOXA the right to the first publication of their manuscripts, and the license to publish them in all formats and means available to the Journal, either in print or in electronic versions.
  3. DOXA will promptly forward any requests to reprint, abridge, or translate an author’s article to the author, so that he or she can decide whether to agree or not. In the case that an author decides to subsequently publish the content of her/his manuscript elsewhere, either completely or partially, she/he pledges to specify in the subsequent publication that a version of her/his work firstly appeared in DOXA.

3. Procedures for dealing with unethical behaviour

  1. Identification of unethical behaviour
    • Misconduct and unethical behavior may be identified and brought to the attention of the editor and publisher at any time, by anyone.
    • Misconduct and unethical behaviour may include, but need not be limited to, examples as outlined above.
    • Whoever informs the editor or publisher of such conduct should provide sufficient information and evidence in order for an investigation to be initiated. All allegations should be taken seriously and treated in the same way, until a successful decision or conclusion is reached.
  2. Investigation
    • The editor, who should seek advice from the publisher, if appropriate, should take an initial decision.
    • Evidence should be gathered, while avoiding spreading any allegations beyond those who need to know.
  3. Minor breaches
    • Minor misconduct might be dealt with without the need to consult more widely. In any event, the author should be given the opportunity to respond to any allegations.
  4. Serious breaches
    • Serious misconduct might require that the [public or private] employers of the accused be notified. The editor, in consultation with the publisher or editorial team as appropriate, should make the decision whether or not to involve the employers, either by examining the available evidence themselves or by further consultation with a limited number of experts.
  5. Outcomes (in increasing order of severity; may be applied separately or in conjunction)
    • Informing or educating the author or reviewer where there appears to be a misunderstanding or misapplication of acceptable standards.
    • A more strongly worded letter to the author or reviewer covering the misconduct and as a warning to future behaviour.
    • Publication of a formal notice detailing the misconduct.
    • Publication of an editorial detailing the misconduct.
    • A formal letter to the head of the author's or reviewer's department or funding agency.
    • Formal retraction or withdrawal of a publication from the journal, in conjunction with informing the head of the author or reviewer's department, Abstracting & Indexing services and the readership of the publication.
    • Imposition of a formal embargo on contributions from an individual for a defined period.
    • Reporting the case and outcome to a professional organisation or higher authority for further investigation and action.