Ethics policy

Ethical conduct guide

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 authors

  1. The authors must state the originality and clarity of the article, the veracity of data, as well as the validity of the study and its relevance in relation with the scope of the journal.
  2. They must know the guidelines for them and comply with them completely.
  3. Manifest any interest conflict relevant for all the contributors, would there be any.
  4. Communicate to the editor if any of the individuals should not review the sent material as long as those requests are explained, reasonable and viable.
  5. Know the dates of publication of the journal, as well as the deadlines for sending and acceptance of articles.
  6. Authors can appeal against any of the editorial decisions.

Regarding reviewers

  1. The review of the manuscripts is done under a blind peer modality and its made by experts, it is also based on the international double system that ensures that the review complies with anonymity standards, i.e. that nor the authors or reviewers know the identity of each other in order to avoid biases in the process.
  2. The reviewers must manifest if there is any conflict of interest, which can occur as a result of proximity or troubles with the authors or their positions, likewise when the reviewers identify the authors despite the removal of their names from the sent manuscript. The reviewers must warn the editor whenever this happens and reject the invitation to evaluate the article.
  3. Every author must comply with copyrights.
  4. The reviewers must check over their articles within the time assigned by the journal in order to observe the deadlines out of respect for the authors and their work as for a display of compromise with the journal.
  5. The reviewer must keep absolute confidentiality in the review of the manuscript and has no permission whatsoever of communicating its contents to third parties.
  6. The opinion of the reviewers is vital for detecting the originality of the content and guaranteeing the scientific and literary quality of the article.
  7. The reviewers must contain an exhaustive critical analysis of the manuscript that contrasts the stated information, checks the pertinence of the scientific literature used and gives a qualitative and quantitative report about the suitability of the text submitted for publishing regarding the academic nature of the journal.
  8. The reviewers must express issues regarding ethical problems or any inadequate research or publishing practices that might emerge from the submitted material.

Regarding the editor

  1. The editor must ensure the quality of the material published in the journal.
  2. Its selection selection of peer experts with knowledge, experience and academic trajectory in the field, with no interest conflicts, is one of its key functions.
  3. The editor must compromise with copyrights compliance.
  4. Its determined dedications towards guaranteeing the confidentiality and anonymity of authors and reviewers during the whole process, as with everything related to informed consents and special requirements for research in human being and animals.
  5. The editor must publish correction, clarifications, erratas and excuses whenever necessary.
  6. Among its duties it is also actively gathering points of view from authors, reader, reviewers and members of the committee and/or editorial boards from other journals about possible ways of improving its publishing processes.
  7. Must observe the deadlines declared for the publication of an article that passed all the stages of the editing process.
  8. Shall identify, select and review the composition of the members of the scientific editorial committee according to the experience and academic trajectory of its members.
  9. Must commit her or himself to using systems for the detection of false data, both by routine use or those coming from plagiarism suspicion. For the verifying of these points, the journal Opinión Jurídica uses the Turnitin anti-plagiarism software with which it is possible to determine the similarities between an article and other documents and publications.


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

We are indexed in