Code of Ethics

ApareSER. Journal of Philosophy is a publishing project that publishes original research in philosophy, as well as translations and critical reviews. It is therefore considered essential that all contributors to our journal—including editors, reviewers and authors—adopt and adhere to the following guidelines on good practice and professional ethics in their research and work. Likewise, we consider it essential to uphold good practices that support the plurality of ideas and the inclusion of philosophical perspectives that align with the journal’s research focus. Gender equality is an ethical principle for the journal; therefore, submissions will be received without any bias that results in gender inequality or discrimination.

For authors:

  1. The research must be original: The work submitted for review must be entirely original and must not contain extracts or fragments of text that reproduce other works without explicit acknowledgement. If, during the review process, any information is found that could be considered plagiarism, the process will be immediately terminated and the work rejected.
  2. The research must be unpublished: The work submitted must not be under review by another journal. Previously published works will not be accepted.
  3. The research must explicitly include referenced bibliographic sources: The work must acknowledge all bibliographic sources that were important to the conduct of the research and that have been cited. References to bibliographic sources must be precise, accurate and contain all the information required for their identification (in particular, the DOI number). In the event of using any unpublished or unpublished bibliographic material (for example, material from archives or posthumous estates), the author must have the express permission of the author(s) of the material, or of those responsible for the permissions and authorisations required for its partial or total use or reproduction.
  4. The research must include the relevant acknowledgements and acknowledgements: It is recommended to explicitly mention those institutions that funded or supported the research, whether through the funding of a research project, the provision of a grant, or the provision of resources for the research. Similarly, it is recommended to thank those individuals who supported or contributed to the completion of the work.
  5. The author(s) of the work must not have any commercial, financial or personal ties to individuals or institutions that may have interests related to the proposed work: The presentation of results that directly or indirectly support conclusions favouring (or involving a conflict of interest with) specific commercial institutions must be avoided.

All submissions sent for peer review will undergo a process of checking for textual similarities using various specialised software programmes. ApareSER. Revista de Filosofía adheres to the standards established by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). For further information, please visit: https://publicationethics.org/.

For editors:

  1. Editors must conduct themselves with complete impartiality and objectivity throughout the entire process of producing each issue of the journal. The duties of editors, as well as decision-making, shall at all times be carried out with the aim of establishing the highest standards of research and quality in the works accepted for publication; as well as through a commitment to constantly improving the journal’s editorial output.
  2. Editors shall maintain constant and assertive communication with authors, as well as with reviewers, throughout the selection process for submitted works, so that a mechanism for dialogue can be established where required. Editors shall be responsible for informing authors of any matters relating to their submissions; this naturally includes the status of acceptance or rejection, as well as any other requirements or information that may be necessary.
  3. Editors shall contribute to and maintain (in collaboration with reviewers) the review and selection process at all times in a confidential and anonymous manner; this is the primary mechanism for avoiding any conflict of interest and ensuring a focus exclusively on academic and research standards.
  4. Editors shall manage and provide reviewers, in a clear and precise manner, with the guidelines for the evaluation and selection of submitted works. Editors must select, for each research paper, two reviewers who are the most relevant and suitable for the subject matter addressed therein; this also applies to critical reviews and translations.

For reviewers:

  1. Reviewers must act with complete impartiality and objectivity throughout the peer review process; they must follow the selection guidelines provided by the editors. Their comments, criticisms and suggestions must be clear and precise, and must always be consistent with the journal’s academic, methodological and thematic guidelines, which seek to identify and select the highest-quality research papers.
  2. Reviewers must contact the editors once their decision is ready, whether it is a rejection or an acceptance. In the case of accepted papers, but subject to conditions—whether requiring minor or major changes—it is essential that reviewers inform the editors of this situation well in advance so that the editors may contact the authors to notify them of the conditional acceptance and allow them to subsequently make the necessary changes, ensuring the manuscript can be considered and, in due course, published.
  3. Reviewers must keep their selection and assessment work entirely confidential and anonymous; they must also guard the information provided by publishers and authors with the utmost care, that is, they must not disclose any information relating to research papers, critical reviews or translations. Similarly, reviewers must not retain any copies or backups of the works submitted for review.
  4. Reviewers must notify the editors of any irregularities in the submitted works, for example, where there is any suspicion of plagiarism. Should such a case be confirmed, the reviewer shall notify the editors so that the situation may be reported to the respective author, and the submitted work shall be automatically rejected.