Code of ethics

                                                        Code of Ethics Management Decision Magazine

The Management Decision Magazine shares the guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics, 1997 (COPE), available at: http://publicationethics.org/resources/guidelines

   1. Author commitments

• Previous requirements. Before submitting articles, the authors must declare that they have read and understood the submission requirements set forth in this section, also that they agree with the procedures for the selection of articles adopted by the journal, and that the submitted texts conform to the publication standards of the managerial decision magazine.
• Multiple and/or repetitive publications. Authors must refrain from sending their articles simultaneously/multiplely to different publications or publishers, as there is a possibility that the same text may be published more than once. This does not constitute an ethical or acceptable professional practice.
• Originality and plagiarism. The texts sent to the journal must be original and unpublished, that is, they cannot have been previously published partially or totally in Spanish or in another language. Authors should avoid duplicate publication, which occurs when two or more articles by the same author(s), without cross-referencing each other, share essentially the same hypotheses, data, discussion points, and/or conclusions, either verbatim or through text. I paraphrase
• Fragmentation. Authors should avoid fragmentation of a study, which consists of dividing or segmenting a large investigation into two or more publications, such that these segments of the study share the same hypotheses, population, and methods.
• Sources. The authors must acknowledge the original sources of the materials used in the preparation of their articles in order to avoid plagiarism. This practice of intentional omission of authorship of fragments or the entirety of a work can take different forms: a) verbatim copying, when reproducing a work word for word, in whole or in part, without permission and mention of the original source ; b) substantial copy, related to research materials, processes, tables or equipment; c) paraphrasing by reproducing someone else's ideas but not copying them word for word, without permission or indication of the original source and d) text recycling, by reproducing parts of one's own work and resubmitting it for publication as a completely new article .
• Intellectual property. The authors must respect the intellectual property rights of third parties if the materials used in the development of the article are not their property, therefore, they must have the necessary authorizations for the reproduction of photographs, illustrations, graphics, charts, maps, diagrams, etc. Authors must avoid fraudulent conduct in the research and publication process, which occurs when data or conclusions are published that were not generated by experiments or observations, but by invention/fabrication or falsification/manipulation, which includes the modification or omission of crucial data or results.
• Authorship. There are two main criteria to be recognized as an author: a) having contributed substantially to the conception and design of the research, to the acquisition of data, or to the analysis and interpretation of the study;b) have written the draft or reviewed the intellectual content of the article.Authors are ranked according to their level of responsibility and involvement in the submitted manuscript.

People who participated in an investigation, but do not meet at least one of these criteria, should appear as collaborators or under a subtitle of acknowledgments (i.e. in the case of research spaces, academic supervision, institutional or financial support). There are three unacceptable types of authorship: a) falsification, which consists of including the names of people who have participated very little or not at all in the research, omitting the names of people who did participate, and includes sending a manuscript without the permission of one of the the authors; b) ghost authorship, refers to the role of professional writers that is not recognized and includes contributions not attributed to those who perform data analysis; c) honorary authorship, is based on a tenuous affiliation with the study or solely with the expectation that the inclusion of said name will improve the possibilities of publication of a text.

• Errors in published articles. When an author identifies an important error or inaccuracy in his article, he must immediately inform the editorial team of the journal and provide all the information necessary to make the pertinent corrections, whose adjustments will be made as soon as possible in the electronic version of the journal and through an errata in the printed version.
• Responsibility. All authors accept responsibility for what has been written. The authors also undertake that a review of the most current and relevant scientific literature on the subject analyzed has been carried out, bearing in mind the different

2. Commitments of the reviewers and peer evaluators

• Contribution to the editorial decision. Peer review is a procedure that helps editors to make decisions about proposed articles and also allows the author to improve the contribution submitted for publication. The reviewers assume the commitment to carry out a critical, honest, constructive and unbiased review, both of the scientific quality and the literary quality of the writing in the field of their knowledge and skills.
• Respect of time. The reviewer who does not feel competent in the subject to be reviewed or who cannot complete the evaluation in the scheduled time will immediately notify the editors. Reviewers must commit to submitting evaluations within the agreed deadlines, or in the shortest time possible.
• Confidentiality. The journal uses a peer review process based on double anonymity, that is, neither the authors know the identity of their evaluators nor the evaluators the identity of the authors.Furthermore, the document cannot be shared with third parties without the knowledge and authorization of the publishers.
• Objectivity. When an evaluator or reviewer has any personal or financial opinion or interest that could affect his objectivity or inappropriately influence his evaluation, he must refrain from participating in the editorial process.
• Contribution to the editorial decision. Evaluators must answer about the article they have agreed to evaluate, adjusting to the requirements established in the form provided by the journal. Define if an article is publishable or unpublishable, or if it requires modifications for its publication to be approved. Provide authors with recommendations that allow them to improve their articles, if applicable. For this reason, we ask evaluators to be specific regarding their observations and comments.
• Conflict of interests. Peer reviewers and evaluators must disclose conflicts of interest or inabilities for the evaluation, even if the reviewer or evaluator believes that they do not affect their judgment.
• Suspected ethical violations. If the reviewer finds any irregularity in the evaluated article, he or she must report it to the editor of the journal. For example: if you find too many matches between the manuscript and another text published in another magazine or book, lack of reference to original sources, plagiarism or self-plagiarism. The evaluator will avoid further investigation of the ethical violation on her behalf, unless the journal asks for additional information or advice.

3. Publisher Commitments

• Publication decision. The editorial team of the managerial decision journal guarantees transparency in the evaluation and publication processes, and is therefore responsible for the management of all the articles received by the journal until their acceptance or rejection, as well as for the implementation of mechanisms that ensure anonymity throughout the entire editorial process. Based on peer reviews, the journal's editorial team is responsible for the final decision to publish an article or reject it. Decision that seeks to select the best articles in terms of their relevance, originality and contributions to knowledge. This journal chooses to select between 2 and 4 reviewers for each work in order to guarantee greater objectivity in the review process.
• Honesty. The editors evaluate the articles submitted for publication only on the basis of the scientific merit of the contents, without discrimination of race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, ethnic origin, nationality, political opinion of the authors.
• Confidentiality. Editors and members of the working group agree not to disclose information regarding articles submitted for publication to anyone other than authors, reviewers, and editors.The editors and the Editorial Committee commit to the confidentiality of the manuscripts, their authors and reviewers, so that anonymity preserves the intellectual integrity of the entire process.
• Conflict of interest and disclosure. The editors agree not to use the content of articles submitted for publication in their research without the written consent of the author.
• Responsibility. The editorial team of Management Decision will always inform the authors of the reasons or justifications for the acceptance or rejection of an article based on the criteria set forth above.Communications, questions, clarifications requested by authors, evaluators, reviewers or any person interested in the journal will be answered clearly and promptly.If the lack of accuracy in any published content is recognized, the corresponding rectifications, corrections or clarifications will be published through the journal's website.Dossier editors submit to the ethical practices of the journal, respecting at all times the procedures established in the management decision journal, as well as the guidelines provided by the editorial team.
• Respect of time. The editors are ultimately responsible for meeting the time limits for reviews and publication of accepted papers, to ensure rapid dissemination of their results. They undertake to comply with the published times (maximum of 30 days in the estimation/rejection from the receipt of the manuscript on the Review Platform) and maximum 120 days from the start of the scientific review process by experts).
• Disclosure. Once an issue has been published, the management decision-making editorial team is responsible for achieving the widest possible dissemination of the content by sending it to national and international repositories, databases, information systems and indexing;the publicity of a new number and its presentation.The exchange of magazines is in charge of the Library of FLACSO, Ecuador and the subscription and sale of magazines is a function of La Librería de FLACSO, Ecuador.

4. Complaint handling process

• Complaints will be received from authors as long as they are well founded, which will be dealt with as far as possible following the guidelines and diagrams established by COPE, as well as the internal regulations of the journal.In no case will the complaint resolution process involve revealing the identity of reviewers.
• Any complaint about an evaluation process will be addressed as long as the author identifies the possible errors in the review carried out.At no time will the reviewer's aptitude be questioned.Complaints will be addressed to the publisher, with the respective arguments and evidence to consider the case.If necessary, the support of the Editorial Committee or one of its members who is an expert on the subject of the article in question will be requested.A response to the claim will be given in a period of up to three months.
• If a complaint of plagiarism is received after the publication of an article in the Management Decision Magazine, and this is verified by the Editorial Board of the magazine, that manuscript will be removed from the website of the published number and from all therepositories and databases in which the aforementioned plagiarized text is recorded.