The articles are submitted through the OJS platform. The editor will assess the pertinence of each of the proposals submitted and will then verify the originality of the texts using the Turnitin software. Once this stage is completed, two peer reviewers will be appointed for performing a "double-blind" evaluation. Both the authors and the reviewers must have a profile in the journal's OJS to manage the article. Likewise, every communication and remission of the material must be performed within this platform. In the case of a draw in the reviewers' decision (the rejection of one of the reviewers and approval by the other or vice versa), a third reviewer will be appointed for settling the situation. The editor is in charge of analyzing the concepts of the evaluators and will proceed according to the circumstances as follows: the editors send the article back to the author for performing the suggested corrections or notifies the rejection of the proposal. The final decision must be sent in the shortest notices, via the OJS with a copy to the author's registered email. The time limit for re-submitting the articles by the arbitrators' recommendations is 15 days. The following figure (figure 1) displays the editorial process and the duration of the process performed by the journal's editorial team.

The journal publishes two issues per year in the last month of every issue (January-June and July-December). The editorial process of each number lasts three months that are distributed like this: the assessment of pertinence and originality of each article lasts a month; when this stage is completed, the search and assignation of reviewers and the remission of the arbitrations take another month; the adjustments of the authors and the submission of the manuscript in accordance with the assessments lasts fifteen days and the style adjustments of each article, for the final composition of the issue, takes another fifteen days.

The journal accepts scientific research articles, reflection articles, review articles, translations, reviews and interviews.

The journal adheres to the Committee of Publication Ethics (COPE) principles and good practices for transparency in academic publications.

 

Policy on falsification, data manipulation and plagiarism

The editorial team, including the editor, authors and reviewers must follow the international ethical standards defined by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), especially those related to:
1. Fabrication, falsification or omission of data.
2. Plagiarism
3. Redundant, duplicate or fragmented publication
4. Omission of citations and references to sources consulted
5. Use of content without permission or without justification
6. Individual appropriation of collective authorship
7. Changes in authorship
8. Undisclosed Conflicts of interest (CDI)
9. Any and other ethical breach that may arise in the research and publication process.

The fabrication of results occurs when the author makes up ideas and data. Falsification results from data manipulation by the authors. Omission originates when the authors deliberately conceal a fact or information in order to change their research results. Plagiarism occurs when an author presents data created by others as their own ideas. The following are types of plagiarism: direct copying of a text without quotation marks or citing the source, modification of some words in the text, paraphrasing and lack of acknowledgments; self-plagiarism occurs when the same author reuses his own material that has already been published, but without indicating the reference to the previous work. Redundant or duplicate publication refers to the total, partial or altered copy of a work already published by the same author.

In case of suspicion of any misconduct, we will follow the flow charts prepared by COPE in order to determine the corresponding actions

 

Regarding the authors:

• The authors must manifest the originality and clarity of the article, the veracity of the data, as well as the validity of the study and its relevance regarding the journal's scope.
• They must know the guidelines for authors and comply with them.
• They must state any relevant conflict of interest for all the contributors if there were any.
• When submitting an article, the author must attach a signed document that states that the submitted work is original, unpublished and has not been submitted simultaneously to any other journal for its possible publication.
• They must make the editors aware if any individual must not review the submitted material, every time those requests are reasonable and viable.
• They must know the publications dates of the journal, as well as the deadlines for submission and approval of articles.
• The author can appeal against the editorial decisions.

Regarding the reviewers or arbitrators

• The journal, in its peer review process, selects international arbitrators with expertise in the topics following a blind double peer system to guarantee that the review is in accordance with anonymity standards.
• The reviewers must state any possible conflict of interests that might arise from the closeness or hostility against any of the authors. Likewise, if the reviewer identifies the author(s) despite the removal of their names from the manuscript. The arbitrators must declare any conflict of interests and reject the invitation of the editors for evaluating the manuscript when, for example, they identify the authorship of the manuscript, they are academically or family-related, they belong to the same university, department or research group, professional network, research project or any other kind of connection or professional proximity. Given any of these cases, the reviewer must decline the editor's invitations for arbitrating the article.
• They must uphold intellectual rights.
• The arbitrators must review the article within the timeline stated by the journal to follow the stipulated times and pay due diligence to the authors and their works.
• The reviewer must keep strict confidentiality in the assessment of the article and must not divulge its content to any third parties.
• The opinion of the reviewers is vital for detecting the originality of the contents and guaranteeing the scientific and literary quality of the manuscript.
• The assessment reports must have an exhaustive analysis of the manuscript, contrasting the information presented on it, the verification of the scientific literature employed in the text and also present a quantitative and qualitative report to the editors on the suitability of the work for its publication.
• The reviewers must make commentaries on the ethical problems arising from possible inadequate conducts of the publications of the research.

Regarding the editor:

• The editors must guarantee the quality of the material published in the journal.
• They must also select expert peers with knowledge, experience and academic trajectory in the topic without conflict of interests.
• They must uphold intellectual rights.
• Guarantee the confidentiality and anonymity of the authors and reviewers in the process; as well as in every aspect regarding consent and special requirements for research on human beings and in animals.
• Publishing corrections, clarifications, retractions and apologies whenever necessary.
• Actively search for points of view of authors, readers, reviewers and members of the committee of other journals of possible ways of improving its publishing processes.
• Complying with the time-frame periodicity declared by the journal for an article that has passed all the editorial stages.
• Identify, select and review the composition of the members of the scientific and editorial committees in accordance with the experience and academic trajectory of its integrants.
• Employ systems for the detection of falsifications as a routine procedure and in those pieces suspicious of plagiarism. For this regard, the journal Ciencias Sociales y Educación employs the Turnitin software to determine the similarity of an article with other documents.

The University of Medellin recognizes the importance of maintaining the integrity of academic and research data for researchers, libraries, and professionals. For this reason, it uses the CrossMark tool to ensure reliable content and inform readers of changes and updates that occur in articles published in scientific journals.

By clicking on the CrossMark logo included in each article, the system will display information about the modification history after publication and its current status. Changes will be made in circumstances that merit it. This includes errata, changes of importance such as incorrect data or information that generate understanding problems. The corrected version will replace the original and the corrections made will be indicated.

Following the recommendations of the COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) for good practices in scientific and bibliographic publication, the change policy will be adjusted to the following circumstances:

Corrections to an article: Changes or corrections will be adjusted to significant errata discovered after publication that may mislead readers. This may be the result of an error by the authors or an error introduced during the editorial process of the journal.

Retraction: This action will be implemented in articles that are found to have serious deficiencies that may affect the data and results. These may include unintentional errors reported by the authors (e.g., in data, instruments, or analyses), as well as issues of non-compliance with good practices (data fabrication, plagiarism, unethical research, publication duplication or overlap, image falsification or manipulation, among others). For any retracted article, the reason that prompted the retraction will be clearly indicated in the retraction note that will be published alongside the retracted article. This note will appear with a watermark and will clearly indicate that it has been retracted.

Article removal: The removal of an article will be carried out when legal limitations are imposed, it is defamatory, or infringes the legal rights of third parties.

For more information, visit www.crossref.org/crossmark

The editor will assess compliance with the requirements recently displayed. Once confirmed the compliance with these requirements, the manuscript is forwarded to the Editorial Committee to assign an evaluator for it. The evaluation procedure of this journal is the blind 'peer-reviewed'. The editor is in charge of sending the article to the peer reviewers selected by the Editorial Committee to give recommendations and inform its findings regarding the publication process of the article. The editorial committee takes into account the assessment of the peer reviewers and the editor to publish or not the article. The article is returned to its author(s) for correction or announcing its rejection. The decision will be communicated to the main author in the shortest time possible at the e-mail proportioned by the author in the manuscript.

Note:In no case, the authors will pay any fees to the journal for the publication of its article. The article must be submitted to the evaluation process proposed by the journal in its author guidelines.

• Publindex, categoría C.
• Directory of Open Access Journals - DOAJ
• Red Iberoamericana de Innovación y Conocimiento Científico (REDIB)
• Latina, el Caribe, España y Portugal (Latindex)
• Matriz de Información para el Análisis de Revistas (MIAR) – versión 2020 Live
• Organización de Estados Iberoamericanos (OEI)
• Qualis Capes, categoría B5 (2016)
• JournalTOCs
• Harvard Library