Ethic guidelines

Table of Contents

Introduction

 

  1. General Responsibilities: Conflict of Interest
  2. Publication and Authorship

2.1. Authorship

2.2. Plagiarism and Self-Plagiarism

2.3. Funding Bodies and Conflict of Interest

  1. Peer Review Process / Responsibilities and Obligations of Reviewers

3.1. Objectives

3.2. Objectivity and Scientific Standards

3.3. Confidentiality and Conflict of Interest

  1. Editorial Responsibilities

4.1. Confidentiality

4.2. Accountability and Quality

4.3. Feedback and Improvements

  1. Publishing Ethics Issues
  2. Unethical Behaviour

 

Introduction

ETS and the Editors-in-Chief of the Rivista di Filologia e Letterature Ispaniche are committed to preventing any form of editorial malpractice. The publisher, the Editors of the Rivista di Filologia e Letterature Ispaniche, and the peer reviewers, each fulfil their respective roles, and are responsible for ensuring compliance with the following statements of publication ethics, inspired by the Ethical Code of COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics: see the “Core Practices” section on the website https://publicationethics.org/core-practices).

 

  1. General Responsibilities – Conflict of Interest

Any actual or potential conflict of interest involving any party engaged in the publication process (Publisher, Editors, Scientific Committee, Editorial Board, Peer Reviewers, Authors) must be disclosed.

 

  1. Publication and Authorship

 

2.1 Authorship

The attribution of authorship must accurately reflect the actual contribution of each participant to the work. All those who have made a significant contribution to the design and conception of the study, or execution of the research underlying the article must be listed as co-authors. A footnote should specify the respective roles of each co-author.

 

Concerning the originality of submissions, the journal is committed to ensuring the originality of the published contributions. Texts resulting from plagiarism or self-reuse by authors will not be accepted. Authors are required to adhere to the ethical code by certifying that the submitted materials are original and comply with current copyright regulations (it is implicitly understood that, for contributions involving multiple authors, all individuals agree to these conditions). Authors are expected to properly acknowledge and cite all referenced sources and obtain the necessary permissions for the use of copyrighted material. To this end, authors guarantee that all individuals who have made a significant scientific or intellectual contribution to the conception and drafting of the work are appropriately credited in the text. The originality requirements set by the journal also prohibit the submission or simultaneous proposal of articles and contributions to other scientific journals.

 

When submitting articles to the Journal of Philology and Hispanic Literatures, authors are required to disclose any sources of funding for the research, if applicable, and specify the project under which the article was produced. They must also declare the absence of conflicts of interest that could have influenced the results obtained or the interpretations proposed.

 

  1. Peer Review Process / Responsibilities and Obligations of Reviewers

 

3.1 Objectives

Reviewers are committed to conducting an honest, critical, and constructive evaluation of submitted articles, thereby contributing to the improvement of the author's work in preparation for publication. Peer review is also a fundamental procedure that supports editors’ decisions regarding submitted articles.

 

3.2 Objectivity and Scientific Standards

To ensure a critical and competent evaluation of the work, the journal’s management and editorial team will make every effort to select qualified reviewers. The responsibility for the review process and the final decision on the publication of submitted articles lies with the management and editorial team, who will proceed based on the assessments of two external reviewers and after consulting the editors of the monographic sections. Reviewers are required to inform the editorial team if they find that substantial parts of the work have already been published or are currently under review elsewhere. They must provide detailed feedback in accordance with the form issued by the editorial office, especially when recommending the rejection of a submission. Reviews must remain objective, avoiding personal judgments about the authors, which are considered inappropriate. If the two reviewers provide conflicting assessments, the submission will be sent to a third reviewer.

 

3.3 Confidentiality and Conflict of Interest

The identities of the reviewers are protected. Reviewers, in turn, are obligated to treat submitted materials confidentially and may not discuss them with third parties without explicit permission from the editorial office. Any confidential information received during the review process must not be used for other purposes. Reviewers must promptly notify the Editors if they are unable to meet review deadlines. Furthermore, they are responsible for declining the review of articles for which there is a conflict of interest, whether due to prior collaboration, competition, or knowledge (or presumed identification) of an author’s identity. Additionally, any confidential information obtained during the review process will be treated as strictly confidential and may not be used for personal purposes.

3.4 How the peer-reviw process works

he Directors –or the Editors of the monographic section– will carry out a first evaluation of the collaboration proposals, to verify both their suitability to the thematic context and to the criteria of the RFLI as they are interested. This first rating may be totally favorable, suggesting corrections or disapproval of the publication. If at this stage the Directors find a reasonable suspicion of conduct such as plagiarism or self-plagiarism, they will verify the extent of it and decide whether to request a corrected version from the author or whether to reject the publication proposal. Should a member of the Steering Committee or the Editorial Committee decide to send a publication proposal, he or she must not be involved in any capacity in the evaluation process, not even in this preliminary discussion phase; management will be entrusted to one of the other components responsible for the evaluation process which will be followed after having operated, on the dashboard of the OJS page, an appropriate blackout of the account of the component in question. In the event of express rejection of a proposal, the directors and members of the editorial team will not use the unpublished materials contained in the rejected article for their own research, without the author’s written consent. Subsequently, the article will be evaluated – through the double blind or referring system –by two external specialists, in a confidential and anonymous manner. This process takes about three months between the uploading of authors’ submissions to the platform and the reviewers’ initial decision, although it may take longer if the peer reviewers disagree, in which case a third reviewer will be called upon. In the event of a conflict of opinions, the Directors are responsible for the final decision. The RFLI will send the authors the reviewers’ reports, justifying the acceptance or rejection of its respective proposals, and requesting, with appropriate and precise indications, possible modifications. In the case of substantial changes, the work is re-evaluated until final acceptance or return. The management of the magazine welcomes the collaboration of all evaluators who have carried out peer-reviewed evaluations for RFLI. All the works received have been informed by two external evaluators.

 

  1. Editorial Responsibilities

 

4.1 Confidentiality

The Editors-in-Chief commit to not disclosing information about submitted articles to anyone other than the authors, reviewers, and editors of the monographic sections. Furthermore, it ensures that the process will be conducted in a way that preserves intellectual integrity through anonymity. Personal data of authors and reviewers will be handled in compliance with current data protection regulations, including GDPR provisions.

 

4.2 Accountability and Quality

The Editors-in-Chief will evaluate submitted articles solely on the basis of their scientific merit, without discrimination based on race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, ethnic origin, nationality, or political opinions of the authors. The Editors-in-Chief also commit not to use the content of unpublished articles for their own research without the author’s consent.

 

4.3 Feedback and Improvements

The Scientific Committee is periodically consulted to provide feedback on the progress of the Rivista di Filologia e Letterature Ispaniche and is informed of any changes to the editorial guidelines. This ensures that published content continues to meet standards of scientific rigor, reliability, and relevance to the journal’s disciplinary field.

 

  1. Editorial Ethics Issues

Edizioni ETS is committed to protecting intellectual property and copyright, as well as respecting privacy and personal data (particularly regarding authors and reviewers). Edizioni ETS actively monitors issues related to intellectual property and collaborates with the editorial team to address potential violations of rules and conventions. The publisher works closely with the editorial team and reviewers to promote editorial independence and ensure transparency and integrity in the review process, with particular attention to conflicts of interest. Edizioni ETS ensures that commercial considerations do not compromise intellectual and ethical standards and is prepared to publish corrections, clarifications, retractions, and apologies when necessary.

 

  1. Unethical Behaviour

Inappropriate conduct can be reported to the Editors-in-Chief at any time, providing sufficient information and evidence to initiate and support investigations. Anonymous or insufficiently detailed accusations will not be considered. The Editors-in-Chief may decide to initiate confidential investigations. If fraudulent conduct is confirmed based on documentary evidence, consequences will vary depending on the severity of the violation. Minor infractions or marginal errors may result in minimal warnings, such as notifying the author of non-compliance with the Rivista di Filologia e Letterature Ispaniche guidelines. More serious violations may require formal actions, including an official statement of concern, which may or may not include detailed information, retraction or withdrawal of the publication, and, in some cases, the imposition of a ban on participation in the journal. Particularly severe infractions, such as fraud, defamation, or forgery, may be reported to the relevant authorities under Italian law.