The Technological-Educational Journal Docentes 2.0 (TEJD) welcomes as an ethical foundation and good editorial practices the Declaration on Ethics and Malpractices in Scientific Publication (Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement) of this publication that supports the combined efforts of authors, editors, and reviewers to produce a responsible, high-quality research publication. This statement is based on ethical principles that follow the lines established by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

1. Authors’ responsibilities

1. Manuscripts submitted for publication must be based on original, unpublished research. They must include the data obtained and used and an objective discussion of the results. They must supply enough information to allow any specialist to reproduce the research and confirm or refute the interpretations defended in the manuscript.
2. Authors must be aware of and refrain from engaging in scientific misconduct or breaching publishing ethics.
3. Authors should honestly present their results without fabrication, falsification, or inappropriate data manipulation.
4. All authors must ensure that the data and results reported in the manuscript are original and have not been copied, fabricated, falsified, or manipulated.
5. Plagiarism in all forms, multiple or redundant publications, and invention or manipulation of data constitute serious ethical failings and are considered scientific fraud.
6. Authors should provide appropriate authorship attribution and acknowledgment. Authors must refrain from deliberately misrepresenting a scientist’s relationship with published work. All authors must have significantly contributed to the research.
7. Authors must indicate the journal when they have a direct or indirect conflict of interest with editors or members of the Editorial Board or International scientific committee.
8. No significant part of the article must have been previously published either as an article or as a chapter or be under consideration for publication elsewhere.
9. Suppose authors discover a severe mistake in their manuscript. In that case, they must report this to the person responsible for the journal as soon as possible to modify, withdraw, or retract the manuscript or to publish a correction or erratum notice.
10. If the Editorial Board detects the potential error, the authors must demonstrate that their manuscript is free from error.
11. For all submitted materials, authors are obliged to participate in a peer review process and follow publication conventions.

 

Editors’ responsibilities

1. The Editorial Board will be impartial when handling submitted manuscripts proposed for publication and must respect the intellectual independence of the authors, who must be given the right of reply if they receive a negative review.
2. Members of the Editorial Board are obliged to maintain confidentiality about the submitted manuscripts and their contents until they have been accepted for publication. Only then their title and authorship may be communicated.
3. Furthermore, no member of the Editorial Board may use data, lines of reasoning, or interpretations in unpublished works for their research, except with the author’s written consent.

2.1. Publication decisión

1. The journal’s Editorial Board will initially assess all contributions. The Editorial Board is solely and independently responsible for selecting, processing, and deciding which of the articles submitted to the journal meet the editorial goals and could thus be published. Each suitable paper is sent to two independent peer reviewers who are experts in their field and can assess the work's specific qualities. The editor is responsible for the final decision regarding whether or not the paper is accepted or rejected.
2. The decision to publish a paper will always be measured according to its importance to researchers, practitioners, and potential readers. Editors should make unbiased decisions independent of commercial considerations.
3. Editors who make final decisions about manuscripts should withdraw from editorial decisions if they have conflicts of interest or relationships that pose potential problems concerning articles under consideration. The responsibility of the final decision regarding publication will be attributed to an editor with no conflicts of interest.

2.2. Peer review

1. Each article submitted is the responsibility of one member of the Editorial Board or of the international scientific committee, who undertakes to have it evaluated by two peers who are experts in the field and evaluate it anonymously.
2. Reviewed articles are treated confidentially by editorial board members, members of the international scientific committee, and reviewers.
3. The Editorial Board will assess and acknowledge the input of all who review the manuscript submitted to the journal. It will also encourage academic authorities to acknowledge peer review activities as part of the scientific process. They should decline reviewers who submit reports of poor quality, improper, disrespectful or delivered after the agreed deadline.

2.3. Identifying and preventing misconduct

1. In no case shall a journal and members of the Editorial Board and international scientific committee encourage misconduct of any kind or knowingly allow such misconduct to occur.
2. Members of the Editorial Board and the international scientific committee shall try to prevent misconduct by informing authors and reviewers about their ethical conduct.
3. Members of the Editorial Board, scientific committee, and reviewers are asked to be aware of all types of misconduct to identify papers where research misconduct of any kind has or seems to have occurred and deal with the allegations accordingly.
4. In case of misconduct, the journal editor is responsible for resolving the issue. He or she can work with the other co-editor, Editorial Board and scientific committee members, peer reviewers, and experts in the field.
5. The issue will be documented accordingly. All factual questions should be documented: who, what, when, where, and why. All relevant documents should be kept, particularly the article(s) concerned.
6. The journal editor shall contact the author or publication involved, either the author submitting or another publication or author. The author is thus allowed to respond to or comment on the complaint, allegation, or dispute.
7. In the event that misconduct has or seems to have occurred, or in the case of needed corrections, the Editorial Board deals with the different cases by following the appropriate COPE recommendations.
8. Great care will be taken to distinguish cases of honest human error from deliberate intent to cheat.
9. The editorial board will consider retracting a publication in case of misconduct, issuing an expression of concern in case of inconclusive proof of misconduct, or issuing a request to correct a misleading segment.

3. Reviewers’ responsibilities

1. All reviewers must know and keep the Editorial Policy and Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement in mind.
2. The journal requires potential reviewers to have scientific expertise or significant work experience in a relevant field. They must have recently conducted research and/or work and have recognized expertise by their peers. Potential reviewers should provide personal and professional information that is accurate and that gives a fair representation of their expertise.
3. All reviewers must likewise withdraw if they know they are unqualified to evaluate a manuscript, if they feel their evaluation of the material will not be objective or if they understand themselves to be in a conflict of interest.
4. Reviewed articles are treated confidentially by reviewers and members of the Editorial Board and international scientific committee.
5. Reviewers should point out relevant published work which has not yet been cited in the reviewed material. If necessary, the editor may issue a correction request to this effect.
6. Reviewers are asked to identify papers where research misconduct has or seems to have occurred and inform the Editorial Board, which will deal with each case accordingly.

4. Conflict of interest

1. Members of the Editorial Board and reviewers shall withdraw in case of conflict of interest with an author or authors or with the manuscript's content to be evaluated.
2. The journal shall avoid all conflicts of interest between authors, reviewers, the Editorial Board, and scientific committee members.
3. The editors and reviewers should withdraw from making decisions if:

• There is a direct-reporting relationship between an author and a reviewer.
• There is a recent, significant professional collaboration between reviewers and authors.
• An editor or reviewer is a collaborator on the project that is being submitted.
• The editor or reviewer has a financial interest in a company or competing company with a financial interest in the submission.
• The editor or reviewer believes that he or she cannot be objective due to personal reasons or a financial interest otherwise not covered in the policy.

- The author must confirm through the Ethics Declaration form if they have any conflict of interest. See policies

*Statement based on COPE Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors and Elsevier recommendations.

See: http://publicationethics.org/resources/guidelines