We encourage the best standards of publication ethics and take all possible measures against publication malpractices. Revista Latinoamericana de Población (RELAP), as a publisher takes its duties of guardianship over all stages of publishing extremely seriously and we recognize our ethical and other responsibilities.
Duties and responsibilities of editors
In addition to many general duties, such as constantly improving the quality and integrity of the Revista Latinoamericana de Población (RELAP), striving to needs of authors and readers, encouraging academic debate, and others, the editors accept obligation to apply best will and practice to cope with the following responsibilities:
Editorial board will be generated from recognized experts in the field. The editor will provide full names and affiliations of the members as well as updated contact information for the editorial office on the Revista Latinoamericana de Población (RELAP) webpage.
The editor should be responsible for deciding which of the articles submitted to Revista Latinoamericana de Población (RELAP) should be published. The validation of the work in question and its importance to researchers and readers must always drive such decisions. The editor may be guided by the policies of RELAP's editorial board and constrained by such legal requirements, copyright infringement and plagiarism. The editor may confer with other editors or reviewers in making this decision.
Peer review process
The content of Revista Latinoamericana de Población (RELAP) should be subjected to peer-review. Articles submitted for possible publication are subjected to a double-blind, peer review process. Articles are first reviewed by editors. The editor may reject it out of hand either because it is not dealing with the subject matter for that journal or because it is manifestly of a low quality so that it cannot be considered at all. Articles that are found suitable for review are then sent to two experts in the field of the paper. The reviewers of a paper are unknown to each other. Reviewers are asked to classify the paper as publishable immediately, publishable with amendments and improvements, or not publishable. Reviewers’ evaluations usually include an explicit recommendation of what to do with the manuscript.
Editors should be ready to justify any important deviation from the described process. Editors should not reverse decisions on publication unless serious problems are identified.
Editors should publish guidance to either authors or reviewers on everything that is expected of them.
Editor should evaluate manuscripts for their intellectual content without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the authors. Editors' decision to accept or reject a paper for publication should be based only on the paper's importance, originality and clarity, and the study's relevance to the aim of journal.
Editor and any editorial staff must not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher. Editors will ensure that material submitted remains confidential while under review.
Disclosure and conflicts of interest
Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in an editor's own research without the express written consent of the author. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Editors should recuse themselves (i.e. should ask a co-editor, associate editor or other member of the editorial board instead to review and consider) from considering manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or (possibly) institutions connected to the papers. Editors should require all contributors to disclose relevant competing interests and publish corrections if competing interests are revealed after publication.
Procedures for dealing with unethical behavior
Unethical behavior may be identified and brought to the attention of the editor and publisher at any time, by anyone. Whoever informs the editor or publisher of such conduct should provide sufficient information and evidence in order for an investigation to be initiated. All allegations should be taken seriously and treated in the same way, until a successful decision or conclusion is reached. Every reported act of unethical publishing behavior must be looked into, even if it is discovered years after publication.
The editor should take reasonably responsive measures when ethical complaints have been presented concerning a submitted manuscript or published paper, in conjunction with the publisher. Such measures will generally include contacting the author of the manuscript or paper and giving due consideration of the respective complaint or claims made, but may also include further communications to the relevant institutions and research bodies, depending on the misconduct seriousness.
Minor misconduct might be dealt with without the need to consult more widely. In any event, the author should be given the opportunity to respond to any allegations.
Serious misconduct might require application of one or more following measures:
- Informing or educating the author or reviewer where there appears to be a misunderstanding or misapplication of acceptable standards.
- Publication of a formal notice detailing the misconduct.
- A formal letter to the head of the author's or reviewer's department or funding agency.
- Retraction or withdrawal of a publication from the Revista Latinoamericana de Población (RELAP), in conjunction with informing the head of the author or reviewer's department
- Imposition of a formal embargo on contributions from an individual for a defined period.
About the Journal: