Code of Ethics

Universidad Centroccidental Lisandro Alvarado

Faculty of Economic and Business Sciences

Barquisimeto, Lara state. Venezuela.

JOURNAL OF SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH COMPENDIUM

ISSN 1317-6099 (Print) 2477-9725 (online)

Legal Deposit PP-199502LA1016 (Print) ppi201502LA4585 (online)

Web Address: www.ucla.edu.ve/dac/compendium

Alternative Web Address: bibvirtual.ucla.edu.ve/compendium

CODE OF ETHICS, COMPENDIUM

PDF Version

Layout and Publishing:

Dr. Aymara Hernández Arias

Dr. Pedro A. Reyes V.

July 2016

Approved by the Editorial Committee

Pol. MSc. José Enrique Achúe

Lcdo. MSc. Jorge Caldera

Dr. Nelson Freitez

Dr. Alberto Mirabal M.

Dr. Gerardo Zapata R.

Octubre 2016

Introduction

The code of ethics in the field of scientific journals consists of a set of norms and principles that govern the actions of the people involved in the creation and dissemination of knowledge: researchers / authors, reviewers, editors of journals, members of editorial committees, among others. In terms of highlighting good practice and quality standards, those norms and principles work as guides to guide the actions carried out by these people through the detailed definition of concepts, objectives to be met and criteria to be considered in decision-making. Both aspects, together with the guidelines set out in the regulations of each journal, its internal regulations and evaluation procedures, constitute a framework for the strengthening of editorial management. Its purpose is to guarantee transparency and compliance with internationally accepted quality parameters.

In this sense, in order to structure the Code of Ethics of the Compendium Scientific Journal, which will be effective from September 2016, a review of the guidelines established by the Ethics Commission for Publications (COPE - Committee on Publication Ethics) was carried out. In addition, relevant materials whose analysis and interpretation were captured in a preliminary document by Hernández and Reyes (2016) were reviewed and presented for discussion at the III International Meeting of Scientific Journal Editors held at the University of Los Andes, Rafael Rangel Nucleus. Trujillo, from July 6 to 8, 2016.

In recent years, a series of inappropriate behaviors by the people participating in the science evaluation system have become evident. This has motivated to establish a set of expected guidelines and actions, which work as a guide to promote appropriate and ethical behavior, both in the research process and in the generation of the corresponding publication. Additionally, they become procedures, both for preventive control against scientific fraud and for corrective control, since they guide the actions that must be carried out when detecting cases of poor practice (Penkova, 2015, referencing Tur and others). The general structure of the code of ethics is shown below.

Content

I Duties and responsibilities of the Editor
II Academic Integrity
III Integrity and academic rigor
IV Relations with authors
V Relations with reviewers or arbitrators
VI Relations with readers
VII Relations with editors of journals
VIII Process of review by peers
IX Monitoring of bad practices
X Debate Promotion
XI Data protection and integrity of academic records
XII Conflicts of interests
XIII Claims, Complains or Appeals against editors
XIV Final Considerations

I Duties and responsibilities of the Editor:

The Editor is responsible for the publication of the magazine. For this he/she must:

Provide timely responses to the requirements of readers and authors regarding: instructions for authors, review procedures, queries on the status of articles in review process, results of that process, among others. Design the best mechanisms to satisfy them optimally: timely communications via email, information available on the website, activation of accounts on social networks, to name a few.
Providing mechanisms for technological supervision, especially in relation to the latest advances, standards and quality criteria in the editorial management of scientific journals. To this end, processes for the continuous improvement of the journal will be executed in aspects related to the management, administration of financing and characteristics of content and form.
Ensure the quality of the published materials in terms of appropriateness, relevance, scientific rigor and topicality.
Respect freedom of expression.
Keeping the integrity of the academic records generated in the daily management of the journal.
The Editorial Committee will deliver to the Dean of the Faculty of Economic and Business Sciences of UCLA an annual report on administrative management in order to ensure transparency in the management of the types of support and financing received. It will include the details of the support received (financing, donations, supply of materials and equipment, other income, etc.).

II Academic Integrity

The Editor and members of the Editorial Board of the Compendium Scientific Journal are committed to the definition and implementation of policies and procedures that make sure the honesty in the editorial management process within the framework of fundamental ethical values. To this end, the guiding principles and best practices that govern scientific publications are taken as norms in order to ensure the quality, pertinence and relevance of the articles, essays and other products of the research activity.

III Integrity and academic rigor

In order to guarantee integrity and academic rigor, the Editor and members of the Editorial Committee undertake to make the necessary corrections or to write clarifications, apologies and retractions in case of detecting errors or omissions in the published material. This includes the removal of articles in which serious flaws have been detected that attempt against the integrity of the content and do not comply with the guidelines required to guarantee methodological rigor. Among them: simultaneous submission to several journals, duplicate publication (or with irrelevant changes) of the same work or artificial fragmentation of a work in several articles.

IV Relations with authors

The editors must ensure full compliance with the evaluation process of articles in order to make sure the quality of the published material (research reports, essays, book reviews, and academic documents, among others).
The authors will have available the evaluation criteria of the articles used by the reviewers / arbitrators for their consideration and analysis. Among them: full exposition of the objectives and methodology, coherence and clarity in the presentation and discussion of the arguments, theoretical and empirical foundation that supports the article, bibliographic references of scientific value in terms of its reliability, validity and update. The evaluation process will end with a verdict adjusted to meet these criteria.
The authors will have information on the evaluation process (flowchart). It will be indicated: involved phases, steps executed in the evaluation, average duration of the process and results.
In the final verdict the result of the evaluation process will be made explicit in the following terms: (a) Approved for publication without modifications, (b) Slight modifications are required. The article will be returned to its authors with the pertinent recommendations; (c) Substantial modifications are required. The article will be returned with the pertinent recommendations and it will be up to the decision of the authors to incorporate the indicated modifications to submit it again for evaluation and (d) Not publishable. The article has shortcomings of substance and form. It can not be evaluated again. This verdict is unappealable and will be delivered to the author or authors in printed format or via email, also indicating the comments and suggestions in detail. The average delivery time is set at one-six months. In the case of options (b) and (c), the author will have 30 working days to notify the acceptance of the recommendations and send the corrected version of the article. After this period, without receiving an answer from the author, the Editorial Committee will terminate the evaluation process and the article will not be published.
The author may sent, in written form or via mail, any comments or suggestions he deems pertinent to the Editorial Committee of the Journal in order to be analyzed, discussed and considered in order to establish corrections in the inherent processes in the editorial management. The Editorial Committee is committed to providing substantiated answers to these communications.
Authors are encouraged to ensure that the authorship belongs only to those who have contributed intellectually to the development of the work: conception, collection, analysis and interpretation of the data, writing and review of the text, approval of the final version. It is recommended to avoid opinion judgments, biased or unfounded positions and covert advertising that exaggerate the benefits of products / techniques / methods considered in the work.
In edition No. 30 (Year 2013) and the following ones, the journal will require the author or authors to send a statement of the originality of the article and the unpublished nature of the contributions. It will also be explicitly indicated that the article has not been sent to another journal for evaluation and possible publication.
The magazine has its own financing funds through official bodies belonging to the Universidad Centroccidental Lisandro Alvarado, therefore, the process of sending, evaluating and editing the accepted articles is free for the author.
The authors of the articles, in their diverse modalities (research, essay, book review, conference, interview, documents, among others) can self-file their contributions in institutional repositories or personal web pages, in their final version, that is, the evaluated and accepted version for publication. However, it is necessary to give credit to the journal, including the bibliographic data corresponding to: names, surnames, email and institutional affiliation of the author / authors, title of the material, year, volume and edition number in which the corresponding material was published, including the electronic link of the article in the journal.
The author will have a checklist for the review of his/her article so that he/she is able to detect if he/she fully complies with current regulations or his/her contribution has omissions, which must be solved prior to the corresponding delivery. Consult: www.ucla.edu.ve/dac/compendium/Checklist_Autores.pdf

V Relations with reviewers or arbitrators

In accordance with the editorial policy of the journal, the reviews are done in a double-blind trial by specialized peer reviewers in the area, for which the author of the work does not know who has reviewed it and the reviewers do not know of the author's name.
For reviews of the articles in their diverse modalities, it is used both institutional reviewers and / or others from national and international universities.
The reviewers or arbitrators will have an evaluating or arbitration form in which the criteria and evaluations are specified according to the respective evaluation norms. In such forms, a general appreciation of the work is also requested based on aspects such as: added value of the article in the relevant scientific field and contribution to future research.
The reviewer or arbitrator will have 15 working days to evaluate the article. However, he/she may request the Editorial Committee an extension for justified reasons.
The flowchart of the evaluation process is available for consultation by the reviewers or arbitrator at the following address:

www.ucla.edu.ve/dac/compendium/flujograma.pdf

The reviewers / arbitrators will receive a certificate as an evaluator once the results of the review of the article have been received.
The journal maintains a confidential file of reviewers, which includes general information, contact information and brief curriculum vitae.
The selected reviewers or arbitrators must guarantee the exhaustive review of the work in order to detect omissions, plagiarism, falsification of data, duplicate publications. In addition, they are recommended to do the review and / or evaluation in accordance with the criteria required by the regulations of the journal in an objective manner.
The reviewers or arbitrators may direct, in written form or by mail, any comments or suggestions that they consider pertinent to the Editorial Committee of the Journal, so they may be analyzed, discussed and considered in order to establish corrective actions in the processes inherent to the evaluation. The Editorial Committee is committed to providing substantiated answers to these communications.

VI Relations with readers

Readers should be informed about:

The authors` ascription institution.
Authors` contact information, including a brief curriculum vitae.
The institution that assigned the research funds.
Valid fundamental arguments to explain any possibility of conflict of interest in relation to the content, presentation and interpretation of the results obtained in the framework of the investigative process carried out.
The readers do not require prior registration and assignment of access codes for the consultation and download of the contents available in the magazine.

VII Relations with editors of journals

In the case of a change in the assignment of the person in charge of the Management or in the members of the Editorial Committee, the new managers must comply with the previous decisions unless a serious fault is considered or detected.

VIII Process of review by peers

The process of peer review requires the assignment of expert evaluators in the subject of the contribution in any of its modalities (research report or essay) and with a professional level equal to or greater than that of the author or authors. Therefore, the latter are required to submit the work together with a separate file that indicates: name and surname, academic degrees, hierarchy (in case of being a university professor), research experience in the subject of work and place of work, among other data.

IX Monitoring of poor practices

The Editor, Editorial Committee and other members of the Editorial Board and Scientific Advisory Board undertake to maintain the highest ethical standards in the management and publication of the journal and to carry out the necessary procedures to detect, as far as possible, any case of professional negligence on the part of the authors and reviewers. Additionally, they undertake to comply with the confidentiality criteria on the data of the authors, reviewers, results of the evaluations and other information related to the management of the journal.

X Debate Promotion

COMPENDIUM is a peer-reviewed, indexed, of open access and free of charge Journal of the Faculty of Economic and Business Sciences of the Universidad Centroccidental Lisandro Alvarado It is a biannual publication in the field of social sciences. It is open to all national and foreign researchers. It is published in Barquisimeto, Venezuela.
COMPENDIUM is committed to the free, immediate and unrestricted distribution of academic and scientific materials, in favor of the promotion of intellectual conversation and the joint search for knowledge.

XI Data protection and integrity of academic records

The Editor and members of the Editorial Board of the Compendium Scientific Journal undertake to protect the confidentiality of information about the established evaluation process.
The authors also undertake to guarantee the confidentiality of the data obtained from the informants in the cases that are justified. It is also recommended to have the written consent of the key informants.
The Editor and members of the Editorial Committee of the Compendium Scientific Journal undertake to make the necessary corrections in the academic records of the published articles in case of detecting errors or omissions. This includes the institutional website of the journal, the academic indexes and the various databases in which it is registered.

XII Conflicts of interests

The Editor and members of the Editorial Board of the Compendium Scientific Journal commit to establishing mechanisms to resolve conflicts of interest that may affect decision-making and prevent external demands not related to the editorial management of scientific journals that compromise intellectual standards.

XIII Claims, Complains or Appeals

The Management and members of the Editorial Committee will ensure compliance with this Code of Ethics and for such purpose they may consult specialists that they consider pertinent.
Claims, complaints or appeals by readers, authors or reviewers may be given by written to the Management of the Journal or via email (compendium@ucla.edu.ve – compendium_dac_ucla@yahoo.es).
The Management and members of the Editorial Committee undertake to respond to the claims, complaints or appeals once they have been analyzed, discussed and verified the arguments presented.

XIV Final Considerations

This Code of Ethics was developed based on the guidelines established by COPE (2011).

In the city of Barquisimeto, Venezuela, July ninth 2016.

Editor

Dra. Aymara Hernández Arias

ahernand@ucla.edu.ve – aymarah@yahoo.com

Editorial Committee

Pol. MSc. José Enrique Achúe

jachue@ucla.edu.ve

Lcdo. MSc. Jorge Caldera

jorgeacaldera@yahoo.com

Dr. Nelson Freitez

nefreitez@yahoo.es

Dr. Alberto Mirabal M.

albertomirabal@ucla.edu.ve

Dr. Pedro A. Reyes V.

p59reyes@yahoo.com

Dr. Gerardo Zapata R.

zapager@yahoo.com

Date of preparation:	July 29^th 2016.
Date of approval:	October 20^th 2016.
Last revision date:	October 20^th 2016.