Declaration of Ethics and Malpractice in the Publicationt

The Technological-Educational Journal Docentes 2.0 (TEJD)  fully adheres to the Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing established by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ), and the Open Access Scholarly Publishing Association (OASPA). All parties involved in the editorial process—authors, reviewers, and editors—are required to comply with these principles to ensure integrity, transparency, and scientific quality.

This statement defines the ethical responsibilities of authors, editors, and reviewers, as well as the procedures for preventing and addressing malpractice.

1. Responsibilities of Authors

  • Submit original and unpublished works, with verifiable data and honest analysis.

  • Properly cite all sources and avoid plagiarism, redundant publication, and data manipulation.

  • Grant authorship only to those who have made significant contributions to the research.

  • Declare any conflicts of interest at the time of submission.

  • Notify the journal as soon as possible of any substantial error detected after publication.

  • Actively participate in the peer review process.

2. Responsibilities of the Editorial Team

  • Make editorial decisions solely on academic merit and relevance, without influence from commercial or institutional interests.

  • Ensure editorial independence from the publisher.

  • The Editor-in-Chief has full autonomy to direct the editorial line of the journal and coordinate the manuscript evaluation process. However, to strengthen transparency and avoid any conflict of interest, the journal includes an Associate Editor/Co-Editor from an institution different from the Publisher. This Associate Editor/Co-Editor actively participates in final decisions on the acceptance or rejection of manuscripts, especially when the Editor-in-Chief may have a conflict of interest, either due to their institutional role or being listed as an author. In such cases, the manuscript will be handled entirely by the Co-Editor, applying a double-blind peer review process.

  • Maintain the confidentiality of received manuscripts.

  • Manage submissions transparently and assign qualified reviewers free of conflicts of interest.

  • Document and promptly address any allegations of malpractice.

3. Peer Review Process

  • All manuscripts are evaluated through a double-blind peer review process.

  • At least two external and independent reviewers participate in each evaluation.

  • Reviewers must maintain confidentiality and act objectively.

  • Any relevant uncited work or suspected misconduct must be reported to the editorial team.

4. Prevention and Handling of Misconduct

The journal does not tolerate:

  • Plagiarism, self-plagiarism, or data manipulation.

  • Fabrication or falsification of results.

  • Redundant or fragmented publication without justification.

Procedure in case of suspicion:

  1. Receipt and registration of the allegation.

  2. Initial assessment by the Editor-in-Chief and, if necessary, the Editorial Board.

  3. Request for explanation from the authors involved.

  4. Evaluation of evidence following COPE guidelines.

  5. Corrective action: correction, retraction, or expression of concern, as appropriate.

5. Conflict of Interest (COI)

A conflict of interest (COI) is any personal, professional, institutional, or financial relationship that could inappropriately influence academic judgment.

Authors: must declare any potential COI at the time of submission.
Editors and reviewers must refrain from handling or evaluating a manuscript if a COI exists.

Common examples of COI include:

  • Personal relationship or recent collaboration with the authors.

  • Co-authorship in the evaluated work.

  • Financial interest in a related or competing company.

All COIs will be managed through reassignment to an independent editor and internal record-keeping.

6. References and Adherence

This statement is based on:

Note: The Open Access Scholarly Publishing Association (OASPA) is an international organization that promotes best practices in open access scholarly publishing across all disciplines. While Revista Tecnológica-Educativa Docentes 2.0 is not a member of OASPA, it adopts the ethical principles that this association supports as part of the common framework defined jointly with COPE and DOAJ.

Note: OASPA (Open Access Scholarly Publishing Association) is an international organization that promotes best practices in open access scholarly publishing across all disciplines. Revista Tecnológica-Educativa Docentes 2.0 is not a member of OASPA but adopts the ethical principles supported by this association as part of the joint framework defined with COPE and DOAJ.