Galicia Clínica Ethics Framework

Responsibilities or behaviour of the Editorial Board

The description of the processes of peer review both defines it and introduces the Editorial Team of Galicia Clínica, with the purpose that authors will be aware of the evaluation criteria. The Editorial Board will always be prepared to justify any decision during the evaluation process.

Responsibilities or behaviour of the Editor

The editor must be responsible for everything published in Galicia Clínica. They must strive to meet the needs of readers and authors; by constantly improving the journal; by ensuring the quality of the material published; by promoting academic and scientific standards. On the other hand, the editor must be willing to publish corrections, clarifications, retractions and apologies if necessary. The decision of the editor to accept or reject a work for publication must be based only on the importance of the article, the originality, clarity and relevance that the work represents for the journal. The publisher undertakes to guarantee the confidentiality of the evaluation process; they may not reveal the identity of authors to reviewers. They also will not reveal the identity of reviewers at any time. The editor is responsible for deciding what articles can be accepted for the journal and the Editorial Board will make the final decision on the articles to be published. The editor takes responsibility for duly informing the author of the phase of the editorial process in which the text sent is located, as well as results of evaluation. An editor must evaluate manuscripts and intellectual content without discrimination by race, gender, sexual orientation, religious beliefs, ethnic origin, nationality, or political philosophy of the authors. The editor and any editorial team will not disclose any information about a manuscript sent to any person who is not the corresponding author, potential reviewers or other editorial advisers All unpublished material in a submitted manuscript will not be used in the personal research of an editor without express consent in writing from the author. Ideas obtained through the peer review or privileged information shall be confidential and shall not be used for personal gain. Editors must make fair and impartial decisions and ensure a fair and appropriate peer review process.

Responsibilities of authors

Authors must ensure that their manuscripts are a product of their original work and that the data has been obtained in an ethical manner. In addition, they must ensure that their work has not been previously published and that it is not being considered for another publication. It shall be considered as a previously published work when any of the following situations occurs:

These criteria refer to previous publications in printed or electronic form, and in any language. For the publication of works, authors must strictly follow the standards for the publication of articles as defined by the Editorial Board. Authors should send the journal an original of the article without personal information (name, contact information, assignment, etc.) and excluding their name from bibliographic references where it appears. Authors of reports on original research must submit a precise description of the work performed, as well as an objective discussion of its significance. Underlying data should be represented accurately in the article. A document must contain sufficient detail and references in order to allow others to use the work. Fraudulent or deliberately inaccurate statements constitute unethical behaviour and are unacceptable. Authors must ensure that they have written original works in their entirety, and if the authors have used the work or words of others, this must be properly cited. Plagiarism in all its forms constitutes unethical publishing behaviour and is unacceptable. Consequently, any manuscript in which plagiarism occurs will be removed and not considered for publication. An author should not, in general, publish manuscripts that describe essentially the same research in more than one primary publication or journal. The presentation of the same manuscript to more than one journal constitutes unethical behaviour and publication is unacceptable. Sources must be recognised properly. The authors should cite publications which have been influential in the nature of the work presented. Information obtained in a private manner, such as in conversations, correspondence or discussions with third parties, should not be used without explicit written permission from the source. Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, implementation or interpretation of the study. All those who have made significant contributions should appear as co-authors. The main author or authors must ensure that all co-authors are included in the article, and that all have seen and approved the final version of the document and agreed on its submission for publication. All authors must disclose in their manuscript any financial conflict or any other conflict of interest which may influence the results or interpretation of the manuscript. All sources of financial support for the project must be disclosed When an author discovers an error or significant inaccuracy in their published work, it is their obligation to immediately notify the Editor of the journal or and cooperate with the retraction or correction of the paper

Responsibilities of reviewers

Reviewers undertake to notify of any unethical conduct by authors and point out any information that may be grounds for rejecting the publication of articles. In addition, they must commit to maintaining the confidentiality of information related to the articles they evaluate. For review of the work, the reviewers must use guidelines for this task. These guidelines must be provided by the Editor and should be considered for the evaluation. All selected reviewers must notify the Editor in the shortest time possible if they are qualified to review a research manuscript or if they are not able to do the review. Any manuscript received for review should be treated as a confidential document. It must not be shown to or discussed with other experts, except with permission of the Editor. Reviewers should behave objectively. Any personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Reviewers should express their views clearly and with valid arguments. Ideas obtained through the peer review or privileged information must be kept confidential and will not be used for personal gain. Reviewers must not evaluate manuscripts where they have a conflict of interest.

You can find more information about unacceptable behaviour in scientific publishing from the World Association of Medical Editors (WAME), the Committee on Publishing Ethics (COPE) or the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE).