Cultura Científica is committed to the highest standards of research integrity, ethical publishing, and responsible scholarly communication. This statement outlines the ethical principles, responsibilities, and procedures that guide authors, reviewers, editors, and the journal office. It applies to all content published by the journal, including research articles, review articles, short reports, technical notes, perspectives, and editorials.
Cultura Científica is a Diamond Open Access journal (no submission or publication fees) and publishes under CC BY 4.0. The journal operates a single-blind peer-review model and follows continuous publication within an annual volume.
For questions or to report concerns, contact: info@revistasjdc.com
1) Core principles
The journal is guided by widely accepted best practices for editorial responsibility and publication ethics, including principles aligned with internationally recognized publishing-ethics guidance (e.g., COPE-style standards). We aim to ensure:
Integrity of the scholarly record
Fairness and impartial editorial decisions
Confidentiality in peer review
Transparency in authorship, funding, and competing interests
Respect for human participants, animals, and communities
Accountability in correcting errors and addressing misconduct
2) Editorial responsibilities
2.1 Decision-making and independence
Editors evaluate manuscripts based on scholarly merit, originality, methodological soundness, clarity, and relevance to the journal’s aims and scope. Editorial decisions are not influenced by authors’ nationality, ethnicity, religion, gender, institutional affiliation, or political views.
2.2 Confidentiality
Editors and editorial staff treat all manuscripts and correspondence as confidential. Manuscripts are shared only with those directly involved in editorial handling (e.g., reviewers, associate editors).
2.3 Conflicts of interest (Editors)
Editors must declare any conflict of interest that may affect impartiality (e.g., co-authorship, collaboration, institutional ties, personal relationships, financial interests). In such cases, the manuscript will be reassigned to an independent editor.
2.4 Quality assurance
Editors work to:
select qualified reviewers,
identify unethical practices,
ensure appropriate revisions and documentation, and
maintain consistent standards across submissions.
2.5 Ethical oversight
Editors may request documentation where appropriate, including ethics approvals, consent statements, permissions for third-party materials, data availability details, or clarifications regarding authorship and contributions.
3) Reviewer responsibilities
3.1 Objectivity and constructive feedback
Reviewers are expected to provide fair, evidence-based, and constructive assessments, focusing on the work rather than the authors. Personal criticism is inappropriate.
3.2 Confidentiality
Reviewers must treat manuscripts as confidential and must not share, distribute, or use the manuscript content for personal or professional advantage.
3.3 Conflicts of interest (Reviewers)
Reviewers must decline reviews if conflicts exist (e.g., recent collaboration, same institution, personal relationships, direct competition, financial interests). If unsure, reviewers should consult the editorial office.
3.4 Ethical alerting
If reviewers suspect plagiarism, duplicate publication, fabricated data, unethical research, or major errors, they should inform the editor confidentially with as much detail as possible.
4) Author responsibilities
4.1 Originality and plagiarism
Authors must submit original work. Plagiarism in any form—including copying text, ideas, data, or images without proper attribution—is unacceptable. Proper citation and quotation practices must be followed. Substantial overlap with prior publications (including self-plagiarism) must be disclosed and justified.
4.2 Multiple/duplicate submission
Manuscripts must not be under review elsewhere. Submitting the same manuscript to multiple journals or publishing substantially the same work in more than one place without disclosure is unethical.
4.3 Authorship and contributions
Authorship must reflect genuine scholarly contributions. All listed authors should have:
contributed meaningfully to the conception/design, data acquisition, analysis, or interpretation, and/or drafting/revising the manuscript;
approved the submitted version; and
agreed to be accountable for their contributions.
Gift authorship (listing non-contributors) and ghost authorship (excluding real contributors) are not acceptable. Any changes in authorship after submission (add/remove/reorder authors) require written agreement from all authors and editorial approval.
4.4 Data integrity and reporting standards
Authors must present results honestly and accurately. Fabrication, falsification, selective reporting intended to mislead, or manipulation of images/data is unethical. Methods and analysis should be described with enough detail to support reproducibility and evaluation.
4.5 Image integrity
Images must not be manipulated in a way that misrepresents results. Adjustments (contrast, brightness) must apply to the whole image and must not obscure or enhance specific features. If required, authors may be asked to provide original/raw image files.
4.6 Research involving humans, animals, or sensitive data
Where applicable, authors must include:
ethics committee approval (name + approval ID/code),
informed consent (for human participants),
animal welfare and ethical compliance statements,
privacy/anonymization steps for sensitive data.
Research involving identifiable individuals must not publish personal data/images without explicit permission.
4.7 Conflicts of interest (Authors)
Authors must disclose any financial or non-financial competing interests that could influence interpretation (e.g., employment, consulting, grants, patents, personal relationships). If none, authors should state: “The authors declare no conflicts of interest.”
4.8 Funding disclosure
All funding sources must be declared, including grant numbers where applicable. If there is no funding, state so.
4.9 Citations and acknowledgement of sources
Authors must cite relevant prior work fairly and avoid:
citation manipulation,
excessive self-citation without justification,
inappropriate citations added solely to increase metrics.
4.10 Use of AI tools
If AI tools were used (e.g., for language editing, coding assistance, image generation, or analysis), authors should disclose this appropriately and remain responsible for:
originality, accuracy, and integrity of the content,
ensuring no confidential or copyrighted material was improperly used,
verifying references, data, and claims.
AI tools cannot be listed as authors.
5) Handling allegations of misconduct
Cultura Científica takes all allegations seriously. Suspected misconduct may include (but is not limited to): plagiarism, duplicate publication, fabricated/falsified data, unethical research, manipulated images, authorship disputes, undisclosed conflicts of interest, peer-review manipulation, or citation manipulation.
5.1 Initial assessment
The editorial office will conduct a preliminary review to determine whether the concern is credible and significant. This may include similarity checks, internal review, or requesting expert opinion.
5.2 Author contact and response
If concerns appear valid, the corresponding author will be contacted for an explanation and may be asked to provide supporting documentation (e.g., raw data, ethics approval, original images, detailed methods).
5.3 Investigation and outcomes
Depending on the findings, the journal may take one or more actions:
request corrections or clarifications,
require revision with transparent disclosure,
reject the manuscript,
withdraw the article during production,
publish a Correction, Expression of Concern, or Retraction after publication,
notify the authors’ institution or relevant bodies in serious cases.
The journal aims to handle cases consistently, fairly, and with due process. Whistleblowers’ identities (when provided) will be kept confidential where possible.
6) Corrections, retractions, and expressions of concern
6.1 Corrections
If an honest error is discovered that affects clarity but not the overall conclusions, the journal may publish a correction (erratum/corrigendum).
6.2 Retractions
Retractions may be issued for major problems such as unreliable findings due to misconduct or serious error, plagiarism, unethical research, or duplicate publication. Retraction notices will remain part of the scholarly record and will clearly state the reason.
6.3 Expressions of concern
If an investigation is ongoing or evidence is inconclusive but concerns are serious, the journal may publish an expression of concern to inform readers.
7) Peer-review integrity and malpractice prevention
The journal does not tolerate attempts to compromise peer review, including:
submitting false reviewer identities or emails,
coercion or bribery,
undisclosed reviewer conflicts,
coordinated review manipulation.
Editors may verify reviewer identities and may exclude suspicious recommendations. The journal may also reject submissions if peer-review manipulation is suspected.
8) Appeals and complaints
8.1 Appeals
Authors may appeal editorial decisions by providing a clear, evidence-based justification. Appeals are reviewed by the Editor-in-Chief or an independent editor when appropriate. Appeals do not guarantee a change in decision.
8.2 Complaints
Complaints regarding editorial process, delays, or ethical concerns should be directed to the journal office at culturacientifica@revistasjdc.com. The journal will review complaints fairly and respond within a reasonable time.
9) Copyright, licensing, and permissions
Authors retain copyright and publish under CC BY 4.0.
Authors must obtain permission for third-party copyrighted content (figures, tables, large text extracts) and provide proper acknowledgments.
Any reused content must be clearly attributed and compliant with its original license/permissions.
10) Updates to this policy
This policy may be updated to reflect evolving best practices. The current version will be maintained on the journal website. Significant changes will be documented and applied transparently.
