Ethic Code

This code seeks to provide a set of minimum standards to which Finisterra adheres. Best Practices are ambitious and developed in response to a wide range of ethical issues. Finisterra inspires this code of ethics in the guidelines provided by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE, March 2011 version).

DUTIES AND RESPONSABILITIES

​1. General duties and responsibilities of Finisterra

1.1. Finisterra and CEG are accountable for ensuring best practice ethics is adverted to in relation to all received manuscripts and material published in its journal.

This means Finisterra editors:

  • support freedom of expression;

  • attempt to meet the needs of readers and authors;

  • have processes in place to assure the quality of the material they publish;

  • are willing to publish corrections, clarifications, retractions and apologies when needed.

Finisterra’s Best Practice includes:

  1. encourage and being aware of research into peer review and publishing and reassessing journal’s processes in the light of new findings;

  2. actively seek the views of authors, readers, reviewers and editorial board members about ways of improving the journal’s processes;

  3. support initiatives to educate researchers about publication ethics;

  4. assess the effects of their journal policies on author and reviewer behaviour and revising policies, as required, to encourage responsible behaviour and discourage misconduct.

2. Finisterra relations with readers

2.1. Informed about who has funded research or other scholarly work.

Finisterra’s Best Practice includes:

  1. safeguarding that all published reports and reviews of research have been reviewed by suitably qualified reviewers;

  2. employing processes that encourage accuracy, completeness and clarity of research;

  3. adopting authorship systems that promote good practice (i.e. so that listings accurately reflect who did the work) and discourage misconduct (e.g. ghost authors);

  4. informing about steps taken to ensure that submissions from members of the journal’s staff or editorial board receive an objective and unbiased evaluation.

3. Finisterra relations with authors

3.1. Finisterra decisions to accept / reject a paper for publication are based on the paper’s / research importance, originality and clarity, and the study’s validity and its relevance to the remit of the journal.

3.2. Finisterra editors do not reverse decisions to accept submissions unless serious problems are identified with the submission.

3.3. Unless serious problems are identified, new editors should not overturn decisions to publish submissions made by the previous editor.

3.4. A description of the peer review process is available, and Finisterra is ready to justify any important deviation from the described process.

3.5. Finisterra has mechanisms for authors to appeal against editorial decisions.

3.6. Finisterra publishes guidance to authors on everything that is expected of them.

Finisterra’s Best Practice includes:

  1. review author instructions regularly;

  2. publish relevant conflicting interests for all contributors and publishing corrections if competing interests are revealed after publication;

  3. ensure that appropriate reviewers are selected for submissions;

  4. respect requests from authors that an individual should not review their submission, if these are well-reasoned;

  5. circulate information of how we handle cases of suspected misconduct;

  6. publish submission and acceptance dates for articles.

4. Relations with reviewers

4.1. Finisterra provides guidance to reviewers on everything that is expected of them including the need to handle submitted material in confidence.

4.2. Finisterra requires reviewers to disclose any potential competing interests before agreeing to review a submission.

4.3. Finisterra has systems to ensure that peer reviewers’ identities are protected.

Finisterra’s Best Practice includes:

  1. boosting reviewers to comment on the originality of submissions and to be alert to redundant publication and plagiarism;

  2. encouraging reviewers to comment on ethical questions and possible research and publication misconduct raised by submissions;

  3. sending reviewers’ comments to authors, unless they contain offensive or unfounded remarks;

  4. acknowledge publicly the contribution of the reviewers for the journal;

  5. monitoring the performance of peer reviewers and take steps to ensure this is of high standard;

  6. developing and maintaining a database of suitable reviewers and update this on the basis of reviewer performance;

  7. ensuring that the reviewer database reflects the community of the journal and add new reviewers as needed;

  8. using a wide range of sources to identify potential new reviewers.

5. Relations with editorial board members

5.1. Finisterra provides new editorial board members with guidelines on everything that is expected of them and keeps existing members updated on new policies and developments.

Finisterra’s Best Practice includes:

  1. having policies in place for handling submissions from editorial board members to ensure unbiased review;

  2. identifying suitably qualified editorial board members who can actively contribute to the development;

  3. regularly reviewing the composition of the editorial board;

  4. consulting editorial board members periodically about the running of the journal, informing them of any changes to journal policies and identifying future challenges;
  5. providing guidance to editorial board members about their expected functions and duties, which might include:

  • supporting and promoting the journal;

  • seeking out the best authors and best work (e.g. from meeting abstracts) and actively encouraging submissions;

  • reviewing submissions to the journal;

  • accepting commissions to write editorials, reviews and commentaries on papers in their specialist area;

  • attending and contributing to editorial board meetings;

  1. consulting editorial board members periodically about the running of the journal, informing them of any changes to journal policies and identifying future challenges.

6. Journal relations with CEG (owner / publisher of the Journal)

6.1. The relationship of Finisterra editors to CEG is based on the principle of editorial independence.

6.2. Editors make decisions on which articles to publish based on quality and suitability for the journal and without interference from the CEG and its responsible.

Finisterra’s Best Practice includes:

  1. establishing mechanisms to handle disagreements between themselves and CEG;

  2. communicating regularly with the CEG, informing on the journal results, achievements and issues.

7. Editorial and double blind peer review processes

7.1. Finisterra strives to ensure that double blind peer review is fair, unbiased and timely.

7.2. Finisterra has systems to ensure that material submitted remains confidential while under review.

Finisterra’s Best Practice includes:

  1. ensuring that people involved with the editorial process (including themselves) receive adequate training and keep well-informed of the latest guidelines, recommendations and evidence about double blind peer review and journal management;

  2. keeping informed about research into double blind peer review and technological advances;

  3. adopting peer review methods best suited for the journal and the research community it serves;

  4. reviewing peer review practices periodically to seek improvements.

8. Quality assurance

8.1. Finisterra’ editors take all reasonable steps to ensure the quality of the material they publish.

Finisterra’s Best Practice includes:

  1. having systems in place to detect falsified data (e.g. inappropriately manipulated photographic images or plagiarised text) either for routine use or when suspicions are raised;

  2. basing decisions about journal house style on relevant evidence of factors that raise the quality of reporting (e.g. adopting structured abstracts) rather than simply on aesthetic grounds or personal preference.

9. Protecting individual data

9.1. Finisterra always protects the confidentiality of individual information obtained in the course of research interactions.

Finisterra’s Best Practice includes:

  1. publish their policy on publishing individual data (e.g. identifiable personal details or images) and explaining this clearly to authors.

10. Encourage ethical research

10.1. Finisterra attempts to ensure that research published was carried out according to the relevant internationally accepted guidelines.

10.2. Finisterra seeks assurance that all research has been approved by an appropriate body, where relevant and exists. However, Finisterra recognises that such approval does not guarantee that the research is ethical.

Finisterra’s Best Practice includes:

  1. to request evidence of ethical research approval and to question authors about ethical aspects if concerns are raised or clarifications are needed.

11. Ensure the integrity of the academic record

11.1. Errors, inaccurate or misleading statements are corrected promptly.

Finisterra’s Best Practice includes:

  1. ensuring that published material is securely archived (e.g. via online permanent repositories);

  2. having a system in place to give authors the opportunity to make original research articles freely available.

12. Encouraging debate

12.1. Finisterra encourages and is willing to consider cogent criticisms of work published.

12.2. Authors of criticised material are given the opportunity to respond.

12.3. Studies reporting negative results are not excluded.

Finisterra’s Best Practice includes:

  1. being open to research that challenges previous work published in the journal;

  2. responding promptly to complaints.