Code of ethics

Our code of ethics is based on the editorial policy statements approved by the Board of Directors of the Council of Science Editors, an international professional body based in Reston, Virginia, USA, which publishes information on scientific publishing. Its Editorial Policy Committee constantly reviews the editorial policies in force worldwide and issues its own recommendations (www.councilscienceeditors.org). In addition, our ethical commitments are in line with the Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors and the Code of Conduct for Journal Publishers of the Committee on Publication Ethics, which provides a forum for editors and publishers of scientific journals to discuss issues related to the integrity of editorial work (https://publicationethics.org/resources/guidelines).

 Sinéctica’s Responsibilities

1. To publish high-quality content, with accurate, valid, reliable, credible, and authoritative information that is compatible with the journal’s scope and focus.
2. To protect the integrity and confidentiality of each author’s work.
3. To select suitable and well-prepared peers to review each manuscript submitted for arbitration, and to make well-reasoned, fair, constructive, and informative editorial reviews.
4. To receive articles submitted to its website and to review them for compliance with the journal’s focus and scope. If the first review yields a positive result, the article is sent to two referees, who are specialists in the subject and whose observations and proposals are sent to the author. Once this process is completed, and in the event the article is accepted, publication is scheduled, and the corresponding editing process is carried out.
5. To inform the author of the stage of the editorial process where the submitted text is at a given moment.
6. To assume that an article is published exclusively for reasons of:

• Correspondence with Sinéctica’s focus and scope.
• Strict compliance with the formal requirements established by the journal for the submission of original articles.
• The results of the referees’ evaluation.
• The consideration and incorporation of the observations and changes required by the referees.

7. To ensure that editorial decisions are made freely and without limitations due to stereotypes or prejudices, including the authors’ nationality, ethnic origin, sex, political ideology or religion. All materials are received in the same way and are processed as promptly as possible. Procedures are in place to avoid bias, conflicts of interests, and outside pressure when editorial decisions are made.
8. To guarantee that articles submitted by members of the academic department to which this Editorial Board belongs, or by referees, are submitted to the same double-blind evaluation and review processes as those of any other author.
9. To strictly respect the ruling process established in its editorial policies.
10. To have the scientific committee review the authors’ objections regarding the results of the rulings and to offer them a reasoned and respectful response.
11. To ensure that the members of the editorial team, the Scientific Committee, and the Editorial Board commit to refrain from using in their own manuscripts unpublished materials that are part of articles submitted to the journal.
12. To rule out manuscripts for publication if unethical conduct on the part of the author is identified in the submitted work. Unethical conduct includes the following:

• Reusing one’s own material that has already been published without referencing the previous work.
• Altering the date of research data collection to present said data in an article as if they were recent.
• Presenting an article as original when it has already been published in another language or another journal.
• Using ideas, tables, figures, or photographs of another author without mentioning the source.
• Having sent the manuscript to another journal at the same time.
• Citing false bibliographical references that alter the article’s veracity.
• Providing inaccurate information about the authors.

The protocol for sanctioning unethical behavior by the authors is as follows:

• In the event of any of the above violations, the manuscript is withdrawn from the process for publication in the journal.
• Authors are informed of the unethical conduct with evidence to support the decision.
• Authors will be afforded the opportunity to respond to the journal’s notification of unethical behavior and offer their arguments.
• If the authors do not refute the journal’s decision with solid arguments, the journal will apply a five-year restriction on the authors, during which time they will not be able to submit articles to Sinéctica. 
• Sinéctica’s Scientific Committee will send a statement about the respective authors’ unethical practice to the network of journal editors for their information.
• Sinéctica reserves the right to report the case to the corresponding authorities if ITESO’s prestige is compromised.

13. To define conflicts of interest in the editorial field as a set of circumstances in which an author, journal editor, or peer reviewer has conflicting or competing interests that could lead to bias or inappropriate decisions. 

Authors’ Responsibilities

1. To submit unpublished articles for review. Any previously published text will be rejected. A paper is considered to have been published previously:            

• When the full text has been published (in print or electronic form, and in any language).
• When extensive fragments of previously published material are included in the text submitted to the journal.
• When the submitted work is part of proceedings published in extenso.

2. To avoid any conflict of interest in the publication of data and results.
3. To clearly cite and reference any fragment taken from work of another author or from the author’s own texts. This criterion implies due reference to the sources of data, figures, and documents.
4. To avoid extensive quotations or paraphrases of key aspects of other works or articles. If necessary, it should be adjusted to the academic conventions of style, such as the use of quotation marks, or the typographical and editorial forms of highlighting paraphrasing (font, indentation, etc.).
5. To include the credits of everyone who has collaborated in the research projects on which the article is based.
6. To avoid any reference to their identity in the text they submit for the purpose of anonymous evaluation.
7. To refrain from submitting their work to any other publication while it is being reviewed by Sinéctica. Should this happen, the journal will suspend the review or publication process of the corresponding manuscript.
8. To accept all the journal’s editorial standards, criteria, and procedures.

Referees’ Responsibilities

1. To make critical evaluations and to offer the authors guidance so that they can improve the text submitted to the journal.
2. To consider in their evaluation the journal’s focus and scope, section policies, and peer review process
3. To accept only texts for which they have sufficient competency, experience, and knowledge.
4. To avoid any conflict of interest that they identify regarding the text proposed for their evaluation.
5. To respect the confidentiality of the data in the article being evaluated, and to refrain from using them for personal purposes or benefiting from the access they have to them in their capacity as referees.
6. To protect the confidentiality of the manuscripts they review, since using information presented in these texts prior to publication, disclosing it to colleagues, or reproducing it for any purpose constitutes inappropriate conduct.