This good practice guide is intended as a code of conduct addressed to all parties involved in the management and publication of papers at Revista Numismática Hécate, both the editorial team, as well as the authors and reviewers of the papers.
1. Editorial team
The Editor, the Assistants Editors and the Editorial Board of Revista Numismática Hécate are responsible for the contents published, and therefore it is their duty to ensure their scientific quality, avoid bad practices in publishing and managing the edition of the received papers within a reasonable time. This responsibility involves the strict observance of the following principles:
1.1. Focus and scope
This journal welcomes original research on all topics, themes and periods of numismatics (archaeological studies, epigraphic, iconographic, stylistic, metrological, economic, historical, etc.). It will also welcome bibliographic synthesis and states of the question aimed at the disclosure of a specific topic, as well as book reviews.
Manuscripts submitted must comply with standards of presentation for originals, whose publicity is guaranteed.
1.1. Frequency and open access
The editorial team ensures the publication of an annual volume, as well as free and unrestricted access to all its contents from their online publication.
The publication and the editorial processing will have no cost to authors.
The opinions and facts contained in each article are the sole responsibility of their authors. Revista Numismática Hécate is not responsible, in any case, for the credibility and authenticity of the papers.
The editorial team will be impartial in their management of papers proposed for publication and will respect the intellectual independence of the authors, to whom it recognizes their right to reply in the event of negative evaluation.
Those papers or researches that have obtained poor results in other instances will be not excluded.
The members of the editorial team are required to maintain the confidentiality of the manuscripts received and its contents until they are accepted or rejected for publication. Only then the title and authorship of the manuscripts could be divulged.
Furthermore, no member of the Editorial Board may use for its own research any data, argument, or interpretation contained in any unpublished work, without the express and written consent of their author or authors.
1.6. Paper review
The Editorial Board will ensure that the manuscripts received are evaluated by at least two specialists in the field, to determine the acceptance or rejection of its publication in the journal, that the review process has been fair and impartial, and that this process had been concluded within a reasonable period of time, not exceeding of six months.
The method used in the peer review will be the double-blind procedure (anonymity of both authors and reviewers). The evaluation will consist of a questionnaire and a detailed report. If one of the two reviews is negative, a third opinion will be requested.
The editorial team will monitor especially the originality of the work, and entrust to the evaluators the detection of plagiarism, redundant publications and data falsified or manipulated.
The editorial team will value and appreciate the contribution of those who have contributed to the evaluations of the manuscripts submitted to the journal. It will promote the academic authorities to acknowledge the activities of peer review as part of the scientific process and dispense with those conducting assessments of poor quality, improper, disrespectful or delivered outside of the time limits.
1.7. Acceptance or rejection of manuscripts
The responsibility to accept or reject a paper for publication rests within the Editor and the Editorial Board, which must respect the reports emanating from the Editorial Board.
Such reports should base their judgement on the quality of the work, its relevance, originality, and clarity of exposition.
The editorial team may directly reject the manuscripts received without reviewing, if deemed unsuitable for the magazine, clearly presenting formal defects, an inadequacy to the scientific objectives or scope of this journal, and/or evidence of scientific fraud, which shall be communicated to the author or authors.
1.8. Disavowal and reporting irregularities
The editorial team reserves itself the right to disavow those already published papers whose unreliability is subsequently determined, either as a result of both unintentional errors and fraud or bad scientific practices: manufacturing, handling or copying of data, texts and plagiarism redundant or duplicate publication, omitting references to the sources, use content without permission or justification, etc. If only a part of an article contains an error, this may be subsequently rectified by means of an editorial or errata.
The conflict of duplication is caused by the simultaneous publication of a paper in two different journals. It must be resolved by determining the date of receipt of the manuscript in each of them. In case of conflict, the magazine will ask the author explanations and evidence relevant to clarify it, and make a final decision based on them.
This journal will publish notice of mandatory disavowal of a text, including the reasons for such a measure, in order to distinguish bad practice from involuntary error. The disavowal will be also notified both the author or authors and those responsible for the institutions in which they are affiliated.
The decision to disavow a text should be adopted as soon as possible in order to avoid its quoting on its field of research.
Disavowed papers will be preserved, warning clearly and unequivocally of their nature, in order to distinguish them from other corrections or comments. Prior to the final disavowal step, the journal may issue a notice of irregularity, providing the information required in the same terms as in the case of a disavowal. The notice of irregularity will be maintained within necessity until its retirement or the formal disavowal of the paper.
1.9. Applying the rules of the editorial team
The Editor of the journal is responsible for the rules governing the operation of the editorial team and must ensure that their members know them
At the same time, are specific aspects of its work to promote and represent the journal publicly and legally in different forums and bodies; to suggest and support improvements; to seek collaboration of reference specialists in the field; to review, in a first assessment, the manuscripts received; to write editorials, reviews, comments, news, reviews, etc. for the journal; to coordinate the Editorial Board.
1.10. Conflict of interests
The conflict of interest arises when the author of a manuscript received by the journal is a person who is part of the editorial team, who had direct personal or professional relationship with its members, or is closely related to their past or present research. Those who are affected by any of these cases should refrain themselves from intervening in the process of evaluating the proposed manuscript.
2. Instructions for contributors
2.1. Instructions for publication
The manuscripts submitted for publication must be the fruit of an original and unpublished research. They must include the data obtained and used, as well as an objective discussion of the results. They must provide sufficient information for any specialist can verify the research carried out, in order to confirm or refute the interpretations concluded at the paper.
Authors must adhere to the style guidelines for submission, and properly indicate, in the suggested form, the origin of ideas or literal phrases taken from other published works.
When graphic materials (figures, photos, maps, etc.) are included as part of the research, their origin must be indicated, providing the pertinent copyrights if necessary.
Unnecessary fragmentation of the research into various papers must be avoided.
2.2. Originality and plagiarism
Authors must ensure their manuscript are their own original work, and do not duplicate any other previously published work, including their own, and that their data and conclusions not been copied, fabricated, distorted, or manipulated.
Authors will retain copyright and yield to the magazine only the right of first publication.
Plagiarism in all its forms, multiple or redundant publication, as well as the invention or manipulation of data are serious and unethical bad practices, and will be considered scientific fraud.
Authors must not submit manuscripts previously under consideration in another journal, nor sent them to another journal until they rejected or voluntarily retired. However, it is permissible to publish a work that extends another one already published as a brief note, communication, or summarized in a conference proceedings, provided that the text on which it is based is properly acknowledged, and that those modifications involve a substantial modification of the already published.
Secondary publication is acceptable when directed to a different audience; for example, if the paper is in another language, or if it is a version intended for specialists, versus another for general public. The circumstances must be specified, and the original publication properly cited.
2.3. Authorship of manuscripts
In the case of multiple authorship, the corresponding author must ensure recognition of those who have contributed significatively in the conception, planning, design, implementation, data collection, interpretation, and discussion of the results of the research; in any case, all other authors will share responsibility for the submitted manuscript. The corresponding author is solely responsible for communicating with the journal and with managing communication between coauthors, and must also ensure that the other authors have reviewed and approved its final version, and that they give their approval for submission.
The corresponding author must ensure that he has not omitted any other authors and avoid the fictitious or guest authorship.
Other contributions and acknowledgements should be recognized in a note. If the journal or the other authors request it, the individual contribution of each member of the work group will be described succinctly in the published paper.
The text of the manuscript must recognize all publications relevant for the research, which must be identified, and must quote the original sources in which the information contained in the manuscript is based. Misuse of sources, accidental or not, constitutes plagiarism. It should not include, however, irrelevant or redundant quotes, and should not abuse the mentions to well established facts of scientific knowledge.
The author or authors should not use the information obtained privately through conversations, correspondence or any discussion with colleagues in the field, unless they have explicit written consent of their source, and that information has been received in the context of scientific advice.
2.5. Significant mistakes in published papers
When an author discovers a serious mistake in its paper, it is required to notify it to the Journal as soon as possible to modify the paper, remove it, withdraw it or publish a correction, clarification or erratum.
If the alleged mistake is detected by any member of the editorial team, the author is obliged to prove that its paper is correct.
The process of resolution of these conflicts is described in section 1.8.
2.6. Conflict of interest
If necessary, the manuscript must be accompanied by a declaration stating the existence of any commercial, financial or personal relationship that may affect the results and conclusions of the research. Also, all the sources of funding for the research must be indicated. This information shall appear in the published version of the paper.
3. Evaluation of manuscripts
All the people involved in the evaluation process play an essential role in the process that guarantees the quality of the publication. They assist the organs of the journal in making editorial decisions and help the authors in improving the articles.
Evaluators should consider work to be reviewed as a confidential document until its publication, both during the review process as after this. The must not disseminate or use the information, details, arguments, or interpretations contained in the revised text for their own benefit or that of others, or to harm third parties, in any case. Only in special cases they can seek advice from other specialists in the field, a fact of which they will inform to the editor of the magazine.
Evaluators must judge the quality of the manuscripts objectively and globally, that is, including information on which the working hypothesis is based, theoretical and experimental data and their interpretation, without neglecting the presentation and drafting.
They will specify their criticisms, and be objective and constructive in their comments. Their judgments have to be adequately argued, without adopting hostile stances and respecting the intellectual independence of the author of the manuscript.
You should also warn the address of any substantial similarity between the work under assessment and another article already published or under evaluation in another journal (redundant or duplicate publication). Similarly, it should draw attention plagiarized texts or data, forged, fabricated or manipulated.
3.3. Promptness of response
Evaluators must complete their job quickly and deliver its report within the agreed time. They must also inform the Editor, as soon as possible, if they think that they will be not able to evaluate the manuscript, or if they cannot fulfill its task within the agreed timeframe.
3.4. Acknowledgement of information sources
Evaluators should check that the manuscript quotes any relevant literature on the subject already published, suggesting the elimination of superfluous or redundant references, or incorporating others not mentioned.
3.5. Conflict of interest
Evaluators should reject the revision of any manuscript if its author maintains a professional or personal relationship with them, or if any of the persons involved may affect their judgment on such matter.
Conflicts of interest may also arise when the manuscript subject of evaluation is closely related to any other being developed at that time, or which has already been published, by the evaluator itself. In these cases, when in doubt, the evaluator must reject the task and return the manuscript to the journal, stating the reasons for the decision.
Edita Revista Numismática Hécate © 2014. Todos los derechos reservados.