Code of ethics

                                                                       Code of ethics

The Mexican Journal of Criminal Sciences adheres to the code of ethics of the Publications Ethics Committee (COPE for its acronym in English), aimed at both authors and judges and editors. Each of these parts has different commitments:

From the authors:

  1. Those who send manuscripts to the journal assure that their work is completely original and confirm the veracity of the empirical data that they will use to verify their hypotheses.
  2. Authors should not attempt to publish identical identical articles in more than one scientific journal; Simultaneously proposing the same contribution to multiple journals is ethically incorrect.
  3. The authors must indicate their sources and the contributions identified in the article.
  4. The authors identify the inclusion of those who have made a significant scientific and intellectual contribution in the planning of the work, as well as in the interpretation of the results and in the writing. In addition, there must be a hierarchy of authors based on the level of responsibility they have had in preparing the work.
  5. If the editorial team of the journal deems it necessary, the authors require showing the sources or data on which they based their research.
  6. The authors are obliged to declare, explicitly, that there is no conflict of interest that may have influenced the requested results or the proposed interpretations, and will require any funding they have received to carry out their collaboration.
  7. In the event that an author identifies a major error or inaccuracy in his text during editorial training, he will immediately notify the director of the magazine, providing the necessary information so that the pertinent corrections are necessary.
  8. The authors accept responsibility for what they have written and claim to have consulted the most current and relevant scientific literature on the subject under discussion.

Of the dictators

  1. Peer review helps the editorial team make decisions about proposed articles, while allowing the author to improve their collaboration. The assessors undertake to carry out a critical, honest and unbiased review of both the scientific and literary quality of the writing.
  2. The examiner who does not feel well versed in the subject matter to be reviewed, or who for some reason cannot make his evaluation in the scheduled time, will notify the director immediately. In any case, the judges agree to evaluate the works in the shortest possible time, even when they have a period of 30 days to do so.
  3. Each manuscript assigned to an examiner must be considered confidential; therefore, none of them should be discussed with other people without the consent of the editorial team.
  4. Peer review should be objective, which involves avoiding personal judgments about the authors. In addition, the judges must give sufficient reasons for their evaluations, and will deliver a complete and well-supported critical report, especially if they propose the rejection of the job. Likewise, they must warn the editorial team if the text contains substantial parts that have already been published or are in review for another publication.
  5. The examiners undertake to indicate the bibliographic references that the author may have overlooked, as well as to inform the editors of any similarity of the manuscript with texts already published.
  6. Information obtained during the peer review process should be considered confidential and should not be used for personal purposes. Reviewers review a manuscript only if there are no conflicts of interest.

From the editorial team:

  1. It will guarantee the selection of scientifically qualified and specialized assessors to issue a critical and expert appreciation of the work.
  2. Papers submitted for publication are evaluated on the basis of their scientific merit, without any discrimination.
  3. The editorial team undertakes not to disclose the information related to the articles sent to people who are not authors, judges and publishers.
  4. The editorial team agrees not to use content from articles submitted for publication without the author's written consent.
  5. The editorial team is responsible for compliance with the time limits for reviews and publication of accepted works. There will be no more than 30 days for the opinion, nor 90 for the publication of the text. It should be noted that, if a work is accepted, but is not published in the number in preparation for any reason, it will be added to a waiting list, in which it should not remain beyond the time invested to edit the next number.

Plagiarism detection

Contributions submitted to the Revista Mexicana de Ciencias Penales must certify the review of anti-plagiarism software approved by the Editorial Board. If the tool detects any percentage of coincidence with already published works, the collaboration will be rejected.