The purpose of the Good Practices Guide is to show the code of conduct by which the parties involved, the editorial team, authors and reviewers of the works will be governed in the management and dissemination of the results of the VAD journal publications.

1. Editorial Team of the semi-annual publication of VAD magazine.

The Scientific Committee, the Advisory Board, reviewers, editor-in-chief and director (hereinafter Editorial Team) of the VAD journal are responsible for the published content, avoiding bad practices in the publication of research results and managing the edition of the works received in a reasonable time.

This responsibility implies observing the following principles:

1.1 Impartiality.

The Editorial Team must be impartial when managing the works proposed for publication and must respect the intellectual independence of the authors, to whom it must recognize the right to reply in the event of having been negatively evaluated.

Papers that present negative research results should not be excluded.

1.2 Confidentiality.

The people who make up the Editorial Team are obliged to keep the texts received and their content confidential until they have been accepted for publication. Only its title and authorship can be spread.

Likewise, no member of the Editorial Team may use data, arguments or interpretations contained in unpublished works for their own research, except with the express written consent of those who have made them.

1.3 Review of works.

The Editorial Team must ensure that the published research papers have been evaluated by at least two specialists in the field, and that said review process has been fair and impartial.

The double-blind procedure (anonymity of those who have carried out the work and the evaluation) will be the method used for the review of the works. When one of the two evaluations is negative, a third report will be requested.

People who submit a work for evaluation may propose the names of up to three specialists for that task. The editorial team reserves the decision to accept or not this proposal, without being obliged to communicate said decision.

The Editorial Team must ensure the originality and unpublished character of the works received, and must guarantee that in the evaluation process, these aspects are also monitored and plagiarism, self-plagiarism and redundant or duplicate publication are detected, understood as the total, partial or altered copy of a work published by the same author to make it look different, as well as falsified or manipulated data.

The Editorial Team will value and appreciate the contribution of those who have collaborated in the evaluations of the works sent to the journal, regardless of those who carry out evaluations of low quality, incorrect, disrespectful or delivered outside the established deadlines.

1.4 Acceptance or rejection of manuscripts.

The responsibility of accepting or rejecting a work for publication rests with the Editorial Team, which must be based on the reports received. These reports have to reason their opinion on the quality of the works in their relevance, originality and clarity of presentation.

The Editorial Team may directly reject the works received, without resorting to an external consultation process, if it considers them inappropriate for lacking the required level of quality, for lack of adaptation to the objectives of the journal or collection, or for presenting evidence of fraud scientific.

1.5 Disallowance of articles published in magazines and news of irregularity.

The Editorial Team reserves the right to disallow previously published articles whose unreliability is subsequently determined as a result of both inadvertent errors and of fraud or bad scientific practices: manufacturing, handling or copying of data, plagiarism and self-plagiarism of texts and redundant publication or duplicate, omission of references to the sources consulted, use of content without permission or without justification, etc. The objective that guides the disavowal is to correct the scientific production already published, ensuring its integrity.

The conflict of duplication, caused by the simultaneous publication of an article in two journals, must be resolved by determining the date of receipt of the work in each of them.

If only part of the article contains an error, it can be rectified later by means of an editorial note or a misprint.

In case of conflict, the journal will ask the author for authorizations and explanations and pertinent evidence to clarify it, and will make a final decision based on these.

The magazine will compulsorily publish, in its printed and electronic versions, the news about the disavowal of a certain text and it must indicate the reasons for such measure, in order to distinguish malpractice from involuntary error. Likewise, the journal will notify the disallowance to those responsible for the institution to which the author or authors of the article belong. The decision to disallow a text must be adopted as soon as possible, so that said erroneous work is not cited in its field of research.

Unauthorized articles will be kept in the electronic edition of the journals, clearly and unequivocally warning that it is an unauthorized article, to distinguish it from other corrections or comments. In the printed edition the disavowal will be stated as soon as possible by means of an editorial or a communication, in the same terms they have been made in the electronic version.

As a step prior to the definitive disavowal of an article, the magazine may issue a notice of irregularity, providing the necessary information in the same terms as in the case of disavowal. The notice of irregularity will be kept for the minimum time necessary, and will conclude with its withdrawal or formal disavowal of the article.

1.6 Disallowance of published monographs and news of irregularity.

The reasons and the procedure for disavowing a monograph will be the same as those contained in the first to fourth paragraphs of section 1.5.

The Editorial Team will proceed to issue notifications and pertinent communications, reserving the right to exercise the corresponding legal actions and to remove the title from its official catalog.

1.7 Application of the Regulatory Standard for VAD Publications.

The person who directs the magazine is responsible for correctly applying the Standard that regulates the operation of the Editorial Team and must ensure that its members are aware of it. These functions are: to promote and represent the magazine or collection in the different forums; suggest and support possible improvements; seek the collaboration of leading specialists in the field; review, in a first evaluation, the works received; write editorials, reviews, comments, news, etc .; attend Editorial Team meetings.

1.8 Author rules.

The rules for the presentation of originals of each journal (referring to the characteristics of the work, the format and resolution of the images, the system for bibliographic references, etc.) must be public..

1.9 Conflict of interests.

The conflict of interest arises when a work received in the journal is signed, among other possible situations, by a person who is part of the Editorial Team, by someone who has a direct personal or professional relationship, or by someone who is closely related to past research or present of whoever integrates it.

Specifically, the members of the Editorial Team must refrain from managing an original when they incur in any of these or similar situations:

- have a family relationship, - show friendship or open enmity,

- be part of the same research group,

- participate or have participated in the direction or co-direction of a doctoral thesis in the last 10 years,

- have defended a doctoral thesis under the direction or co-direction of the author or authors in the last 10 years,

- collaborate or have collaborated in publications or patents in the last 5 years,

- collaborate in other economic or scientific-technological activities,

- have a contractual relationship or share funds or research projects national or international, public or private entities, or of any other nature, in the last 3 years..

The Editorial Team will also refrain from selecting reviewers who are or may be affected by any of these situations.

2. Authorship of VAD monographs and journal articles.

The authors of the texts sent for publication in the journal VAD are the first responsible for their content, and for this reason they are obliged to apply an ethical standard aimed at ensuring their originality and due attribution of authorship, among other aspects. Inappropriate behavior may lead to the disavowal of published content, as established in sections 1.5 and 1.6 of this Guide.

In addition to its ethical assessment, improper conduct can lead to the violation of its own rights or that of third parties, for which the editorial management reserves the right to exercise the legal actions that correspond to it..

2.1 Publication rules.

The texts submitted for publication must be the result of an original and unpublished research. They must include the data obtained and used, as well as an objective discussion of their results. Sufficient information must be provided so that any specialist can reproduce the investigations carried out and confirm or refute the interpretations defended in the work.

The authors must adequately mention the origin of the ideas or literal phrases taken from other works already published in the manner indicated in the regulations of the journal or collection.

When images are included as part of the investigation, it should be conveniently explained how they were created or obtained, as long as it is necessary for their understanding. In the case of totally or partially reproducing graphic material (figures, photos, maps, etc.) previously published, its origin will be cited, providing the pertinent reproduction permissions if necessary..

Unnecessary fragmentation of journal articles should be avoided. If it is a very extensive work, it can be published in several parts, each one developing a certain aspect of the general study. The different related works should be published in the same journal to facilitate their interpretation by readers.

2.2 Originality and plagiarism.

The authors must ensure that the data and results presented in the work are original and have not been copied, invented, distorted or manipulated.

Plagiarism in all its forms, self-plagiarism, multiple or redundant publication, as well as the invention or manipulation of data constitute serious breaches of ethics and are considered scientific fraud.

Authors will not send originals to a journal or VAD collection that were previously submitted for consideration by another editor, nor will they send that original to another editor until they receive notification of its rejection or voluntarily withdraw it. However, it is admissible to publish a work that expands on another that has already appeared as a short note, communication or summary in the proceedings of a congress, provided that the text on which it is based is properly cited and that the modifications involve a substantial modification of what has already been published. Secondary posts are also acceptable if they target totally different readers; for example, if the work is published in different languages ​​or if there is a version for specialists versus another aimed at the general public. These circumstances should be specified and the original publication properly cited.

2.3 Authorship of the work.

In the case of multiple authorship, whoever appears as responsible for the work must guarantee the recognition of those who have contributed significantly in the conception, planning, design, execution, data collection, interpretation and discussion of the results of the work; In any case, all the people who sign it share responsibility for the work presented. Likewise, whoever acts as responsible and contact person must ensure that those who sign it have reviewed and approved the final version of the work and give their approval for its possible publication.

The person responsible for the work must ensure that none of the signatures responsible for the work have been omitted, nor added others that are not, and that they thus satisfy the aforementioned co-authorship criteria, avoiding fictitious or gifted authorship, which constitutes a bad scientific practice.

Likewise, the contribution of other people who are not listed as signatories or who are not responsible for the final version of the work should be recognized appropriately, by way of appreciation.

If the Editorial Team considers it necessary or the signatories of the work request it, the published version will briefly describe the individual contribution of each member of the signing group to the collective work.

2.4 Sources of information and financing.

In the text of the work, the publications that have influenced the research should be recognized, so the original sources on which the information contained in your work is based should be identified and cited in the bibliography. However, irrelevant citations or those referring to similar examples should not be included, and mentions of research already established in the corpus of scientific knowledge should not be abused.

Authors should not use information obtained privately through conversations, correspondence or from any discussion with colleagues on the matter, unless they have explicit permission, in writing, from their source of information and such information has been received in a context of scientific advice.

In the publication, all the sources of funding granted for the study must be indicated in a clear and concise manner, mentioning the private or public entity responsible for said funding, and the identification code of that funding, when it exists. This information will appear in the published work.

2.5 Significant errors in published works.

When an author discovers a serious error in their work, they have the obligation to communicate it to those responsible for the magazine as soon as possible, to modify their work, withdraw it, withdraw or publish a correction or errata.

If the possible error is detected by any of the members of the Editorial Team, the authors are obliged to prove that their work is correct.

The process for resolving these conflicts is described in sections 1.5 and 1.6.

2.6 Conflict of interests.

When there is any commercial, financial or personal link that may affect the results and conclusions of your work, the text of the work must be accompanied by a statement stating these circumstances, which will appear in the published version of the work.

3. The evaluation of articles from scientific journals and monographs.

The people involved in the evaluation play an essential role in the process that ensures the quality of the publication. They assist the Editorial Team of the journal in making editorial decisions, help to improve published works, and provide a guarantee of scientific accreditation.

3.1 Confidentiality.

The reviewer should view the work to be reviewed as a confidential document until it is published, both during and after the review process. In no case should you disseminate or use the information, details, arguments or interpretations contained in the text under review for your own benefit or that of other people, or to harm third parties. Only in special cases can you seek the advice of other specialists in the field, a circumstance of which you must inform the Management of the journal or collection.

3.2 Objectivity.

Whoever performs an evaluation must objectively judge the quality of the complete work, that is, including the information on which the working hypothesis is based, the theoretical and experimental data and their interpretation, without neglecting the presentation and writing of the text.

Likewise, you must specify your criticisms, and be objective and constructive in your comments. They must adequately argue their judgments, without adopting hostile positions and respecting the intellectual independence of the person who prepared the work.

Whoever performs an evaluation must advise the person who has commissioned it of any relevant similarity between the work submitted for evaluation and another work published or in the process of evaluation in another publication of which they have knowledge. Likewise, it must draw attention to plagiarized texts or data from others or from the same author or authors of the evaluated work, or to the suspicion or well-founded certainty that they are falsified, invented or manipulated.

3.3 Prompt response.

Whoever carries out an evaluation must act quickly and must deliver their report in the agreed time, so they will notify the Directorate of the journal or collection of possible delays. If the person conducting an evaluation does not consider himself capable of judging the work commissioned, or considers that he cannot fulfill his task within the agreed period, he must notify the Director of the journal or collection as soon as possible.

3.4 Recognition of information sources.

Whoever carries out an evaluation must verify that relevant works already published on the subject are cited. With this objective in mind, it will review the bibliography collected in the text, suggesting the elimination of superfluous or redundant references, or the incorporation of others not cited.

3.5 Conflict of interests.

Whoever performs an evaluation must reject the review of a work when they suspect or know that it is included in any of the situations that may affect their judgment about said work, described in section 1.9 of this Guide.

Conflicts of interest can also arise when the work to be evaluated is closely related to that which the evaluator is currently developing or with which he has already published.

In these cases, when in doubt, you must renounce the assigned task and return the work to the Editorial Team, indicating the reasons for such decision.

Sources consulted: The Good Practice Guide for periodic and unitary publications of Editorial CSIC has been taken as a reference and starting point for this document due to its high ethical value and its impartiality demonstrated over the years: < / em> Editorial CSIC. Good practice guide for periodic and unit publications, version 3.0, June 2016.