The editorial committee of Revista Ingenierías Universidad de Medellín ensures that the published articles adhere to ethics protocols based on the policies established by the Committee on Publication Ethics –COPE- (http://publicationethics.org/resources/guidelines). Our affiliation as COPE members, guarantees that we actively participate in the discussion and sharing of best editorial practices worldwide. Additionally, our inclusion in different databases and indexing systems, ensures that our editorial processes align with widely accepted quality standards.

 

The articles submitted to our journal must guarantee:

 

1. Quality and ethics of the research work from which the papers originate.
   • The manuscripts must be originals, not previously published, and not being under review process by other journal simultaneously while being submitted to our publication. Authors acknowledge that the journal may conduct plagiarism verification on their articles and clarify the use of artificial intelligence tools as writing aids, if applicable.
   • The data presented in the submitted papers must be verifiable upon request.
   • The articles should be written in a manner that the conclusions address the research question posed and can be adequately supported with the methods and results.
   • The origin of each article, including financing institutions and execution periods, must be clearly indicated.

 

2. Authorship
   • In case of submitting an article with multiple authors, it is necessary to clarify the contribution of each author. Inclusion as a co-author should be based on the recognition of the real contribution to the integrity of the article or specific parts of it. Co-authorship should not be granted to those who have not made any specific contribution to the text.
   • Each co-author is jointly responsible of the integrity of the article and the ethics involved in writing it.
   • The practice of including authors’ names solely for personal benefits or to increase the chances of acceptance of the manuscript should be avoided.
   • The journal rejects the practice of having undergraduate and postgraduate students produce articles where their supervisors or advisors are listed as co-authors without having made any contribution. The journal encourages those co-authors to have an equitable participation in the writing process.

 

3. Conflicts of interests
   • The authors may disclosure any conflict of interest if they exist.
   • Similarly, editors should inform readers when a detectable conflict of interest exist that may involve any of the users of the journal.
   • An extreme conflict of interest may lead to the decision to reject the article.

 

4. Referees
   • Editors conducts an initial revision of the submitted articles. This initial review allows for prompt communication with the authors, informing them whether the article will be sent to external reviewers or returned without starting the editorial process.
   • As stated in our guidelines, authors are encouraged to suggest reviewers for the article review. While not obligatory for the journal, reviewer suggestions help facilitate the editorial process.
   • Manuscript review is conducted by experts in the field using the double-blind peer review system, an international standard that ensures anonymity during the review process.
   • Reviewers must declare any conflicts of interest that may impede their evaluation, including proximity or animosity towards the authors, in case they can identify the authors despite the anonymity system.
   • Reviewers are expected to complete the article review within the deadlines established by the journal, respecting the turnaround times (maximum of 6 weeks, but preferably within 3 weeks), taking into consideration the authors and their work.
   • Reviewers must maintain strict confidentiality when evaluating a manuscript and should not disclose its content.
   • Reviewers cannot use the material assigned by the journal for their own publications or personal use under any circumstances. The contents of the articles can only be used by properly citing the source once the article has gone through a successful editing process and has been published.
   • Evaluations should include a comprehensive analysis of the manuscript, comparing the presented information and verifying the scientific literature used in the document. Reviewers should provide a detailed report to the editors regarding the suitability of the work for publication, including their well-founded opinions.

 

5. Double blind review
   • Reviewers are external experts selected by the editors, with no affiliation to the authors of the article, to provide their written opinions and contribute to improving the article. In this journal, anonymity is maintained both from the reviewers towards the authors and from the authors towards the reviewers.
   • Authors are encouraged to suggest two international reviewers (preferably) who are not affiliated with their institutions, with the aim of creating a database of potential reviewers for future articles. Once it is confirmed that the article meets the criteria established in the submission guidelines and quality standards to initiate the evaluation process, the responsible editor will forward it to peer reviewers, considering their academic level, publications, research experience, among other factors. Once the arbitration request is accepted, reviewers commit to sending their evaluation within a maximum period of 30 days.
   • Reviewers must keep confidentiality and ethical use of the article evaluation, which includes not seeking opinions from colleagues on specific sections of the article, contacting the authors if they identify them, or taking information from the evaluated article for personal or academic purposes.
   • Neither the reviewers nor the editors should use the data, arguments, or interpretations from the article unless they have express authorization from the authors.
   • Reviewers must provide useful information to the editors and authors by delivering diligent, accurate, polite, unbiased, and justified reports. An evaluation that does not provide elements that enrich the assessment of an article is not acceptable. In this regard, the evaluation should consider the contribution to the knowledge of the topic, the presented innovations, the developed critical judgment, proper citation format, the references used, and appropriate writing, among other aspects. Additionally, recommendations for modification and improvement of the evaluated text should be provided when applicable.
   • If reviewers suspect any inappropriate conduct, including ethical transgressions, unsupported data, plagiarism, or other issues, they should confidentially report it to the editor.
   • The evaluation of the articles will be based on the relevance of the topic for publication in the journal, the topic's relevance in the current context, theory, or research, the structure and writing of the text, as well as the soundness of the sources used.

 

6. Plagiarism

Plagiarism can vary from a lack of proper references to the unauthorized use of ideas from others, whether published or not. This includes cases where entire documents are presented under new authorship, sometime even in a different language. Plagiarism can occur in any stage of the process, from that planning and research to writing and publication, whether in print or electronic versions.

 

It is essential to properly cite all sources used, and when using substantial amounts of written material or illustrations from others, obtaining the corresponding authorization is necessary.

 

Revista Ingenierías Universidad de Medellín strictly and explicitly prohibits plagiarism, in line with our commitment and respect for our academic community of reference. The detection of plagiarism is grounds for immediate rejection of a submission at any stage of the editorial process, including the late discovery of plagiarism after the article has been published. In the case of a late detection, the procedure we follow is the to engage in discussions among editors to determine the conditions for a retraction of the published article with due and justification.

 

When we receive a work from an author, the first step we take is to review its similarity to other documents using plagiarism detection software. If we find similarities that indicate the work has already been published, we inform the corresponding author and reject the publication. If no similarities are found with other documents, we proceed with the article's evaluation process. However, before typesetting and prior to publication, we conduct an additional review for document similarity.

 

7. Redundant publication

A redundant publication occurs when two or more documents share the same data, hypotheses, points of discussion, or conclusions, either with or without it has references or without complete cross references.

• In Revista Ingenierías Universidad de Medellín, we strive to avoid the repetition of studies that have already been published unless additional confirmation is necessary. If a work has been previously published as part of conference proceedings, its publication as an article in our journal loses validity unless it presents a substantially improved version with new results (at least 50% new content) and a deeper analysis that provides novelty, making it a distinct work from the one published in the conference proceedings.
• The publication of a work that has already been published in another journal, whether in the same language or a different one, is not accepted in our journal.
• When authors submit an article for publication in our journal, they must provide detailed information about any related documents that may raise ethical or redundancy concerns, even if they are in a different language, as well as any similar documents that are currently in the process of publication.

 

 

8. Treatment of inappropriate conduct
   • Principles
     • The fundamental principle that defines inappropriate conduct is the intention to deceive others by making them believe something that is not true.
     • When evaluating inappropriate conduct, it is important to consider not only the act or omission itself but also the intention of the author, editor, or reviewer involved, which, despite the presumption of innocence, may be intentional.
   • Investigation of inappropriate conduct
     • Editors have the ethical obligation not only to reject papers that may involve inappropriate conduct but also to adequately investigate the case. However, the process of conducting such an investigation and how to respond to potential cases of inappropriate conduct can be challenging.
     • Editors make the decision on which actions to take, and in case of uncertainty, they may seek legal advice from relevant authorities at the University.
   • Serious inappropriate conduct
     • Editors should take all accusations and suspicions of serious inappropriate conduct seriously, but they should also acknowledge that they generally lack the legal authority and necessary resources to conduct investigations in serious cases.
     • Editors may decide when it is appropriate to inform the employers of accused authors.
     • If editors receive solid evidence of inappropriate conduct, possibly from reviewers, that demonstrates unethical and serious misconduct, they should immediately inform the employers and notify the authors about this action.
     • If accusations of inappropriate conduct are not supported by compelling evidence, editors should confidentially seek expert advice or seek legal support. If the advice indicates a serious concern regarding the article, editors will be obliged to inform the authors' employers.
     • If no compelling evidence of inappropriate conduct is found, the editorial process will continue as usual.
     • Authors will have the opportunity to respond to accusations of serious inappropriate conduct.
   • Less serious inappropriate conduct
     • Editors may consider it unnecessary to involve employers in less serious cases of inappropriate conduct, such as redundant publications, deceptive authorship, or failure to declare conflicts of interest. Although sometimes the evidence alone is sufficient, it may be prudent to seek the opinion of an independent expert.
     • Authors will have the opportunity to respond to any accusations of less serious inappropriate conduct.
     • If editors are convinced that an ethical breach has occurred, they may impose sanctions.
   •  

Sanctions can be applied in combination or individually. They are presented next in order of severity:

• Issuing a clarification letter addressed to the authors when there appears to be a misunderstanding of principles.
• Issuing a letter of reprimand and warning for future conduct.
• Publishing a detailed editorial on the inappropriate conduct.
• Rejecting future submissions from the authors, academic unit, research group, or institution responsible for the inappropriate conduct for a specified period.
• Formally withdrawing the article in question through retraction in the electronic journal, using the OJS system, and notifying other editors. The cases in which retractions apply are covered in COPE's retraction guidelines. Retraction is a mechanism to correct published information and alert readers to unreliable, incorrect, or incomplete information that may partially or completely affect the nature of an article.

 

Crossmark Policy

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.