Ethical considerations

This statement is based on the “Ethics toolkit for a successful editorial office: a COPE Guide” (https://publicationethics.org/resources/guidelines/ethics-toolkit-editors).

 

For authors:

Authorship of manuscripts should only be attributed to those who made substantial contributions to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the research and the writing and editing of the article. The main author must include all co-authors and all co-authors must review and approve the final version for publication.

It is the responsibility of the corresponding author to coordinate communication between the editor in charge and with all the other authors of the submitted manuscript.

It is the responsibility of the authors to present original, unpublished (not submitted to more than one journal at a time) and non-redundant (not publishing identical material in more than one journal) research and correctly reference all material from other sources. Manuscripts are submitted to the Compilatio plagiarism detector (https://www.compilatio.net/en). All authors must indicate any conflict of interest that may interfere with the interpretation of the research, also informing of any source of funding.

There are international recommendations that authors can consult if applicable, such as the SRQR for qualitative studies (https://www.equator-network.org/reporting-guidelines/srqr/), COREQ for interviews and focus groups (https://www.equator-network.org/reporting-guidelines/coreq/) or PRISMA for systematic reviews (https://www.equator-network.org/reporting-guidelines/prisma/ ).

All researchers submitting to the journal must inform during the submission of the manuscript about the use of informed consent and the ethical conduct of research with human and/or animal participants, if relevant. It is the obligation of the authors to inform the journal about the correct use of consent declarations for research and also for publication.

All research submitted to the journal must disclose the sources of funding and the role of the funder in that study, and whether or not there funders interfere in important decisions in the research process.

The journal does not require that research data related to the manuscript be available for consultation. If available, the author should include the persistent identifier of the data.

The authors can discuss, correct or retract the content published in the journal. To do this, they must communicate as soon as possible with the editorial team to present information related to the case. The team will discuss the possibility of publishing an expression of concern, editorial or, if appropriate, retraction and publication of an explanation of the information of the case.

In the event of disputes regarding authorship, the author or co-author should notify the journal as soon as possible when they become aware of a fundamental lack or inaccuracy in their article. In that case, a discreet investigation will be carried out, contacting all those involved.

 

For reviewers:

Reviews for the journal URBE. Arquitectura, Ciudad y Territorio are double blinded and performed by expert peers where neither the reviewers nor the authors have access to the identity of the other party. All comments from both parties are filtered by the editorial team, who know the identity of both parties, but make sure to remove any indicators of identity such as name, affiliation, etc.

Each new article that is submitted to the journal is assigned to an editor in charge, who will carry out the entire process of preselection of articles by thematic relevance with the journal and the subsequent submission for review until the final decision to approve or reject  the article. Rejected manuscripts may not be used by the editors or by the reviewers, without first explicitly requesting permission for their use from the author/s.

For reviews, experts are selected in the topics of each article under review. In the double-blind mode, every article is reviewed by two reviewers. If the result of both reviews is discordant, a third reviewer is selected to make a final decision.

Reviewers must notify editors of any conflict of interest including their ineligibility because of recognition of the authorship of a manuscript. They must treat the manuscripts sent for review with confidentiality, not being able to use the studies for their own research without duly referencing the work when it is published. If the reviewers wish to designate a co-reviewer, they must first notify the editor in charge of the manuscript, who will decide if the person fits the journal's criteria for selecting reviewers. Reviewers may not, for any reason, independently forward a manuscript under their consideration to others.

Reviews are performed on the journal's OJS platform. For this reason, reviewers must be registered on the platform to receive notifications of request for review and access to articles. For reviews, there is an online form to which the reviewers respond. The normal time frame for the review is 2 weeks. If reviewers cannot meet the review deadline or do not believe they are experts on the topic of the manuscript, they should notify the editorial team or request reasonable adjustments to the deadline.

If reviewers have observations about ethical conduct regarding the manuscript's research, or about ethical conduct regarding another aspect of the publication, they should notify the editorial team.

Reviews are property of reviewers. The editorial team only consults them to make decisions to approve or reject the manuscripts. The editorial team will not use the reviews for their own research without seeking explicit permission to do so from the reviewers.

 

For editors:

In case of doubts or complaints regarding ethical issues, those interested should contact the editorial team of the journal, who will review the information provided and, if the case warrants it, will constitute a panel to carry out a discreet and impartial investigation regarding the information relative to the complaint. Depending on the seriousness of the accusation, and if the complaint is confirmed, it may give rise to different sanctions: notification to the author or reviewer of a violation of the journal's ethical standards, warning regarding unethical behavior, publication of a formal comment detailing the misconduct, publication of an editorial comment detailing the misconduct, formal removal of the papers in question from the journal along with notification to the supervisor of the the author or reviewer and the publication of an explanation of the decision to withdraw the work, up to a formal embargo on the submission of new work by the author for a specified period.

Editors are selected by the director of the journal among academics and researchers belonging to the Facultad de Arquitectura, Urbanismo y Geografía (School of Architecture, Urbanism and Geography) of the Universidad de Concepción. They are trained in the journal's internal training sessions and in external training instances.

The journal is financed by the Facultad de Arquitectura, Urbanismo y Geografía of the Universidad de Concepción. All the editors are academics or researchers from the School and all the editing staff (responsible for copyediting, graphic and layout editing, etc.) are hired part-time to fulfill the specific functions necessary for the publication of the journal. The journal does not include advertising. Editorial decisions are independent and the School does not interfere in the operation of those decisions.

 

Procedure for responding to unethical conduct:

Authors, editors, and reviewers must declare potential conflicts of interest, defined as those relationships that may influence their judgment inappropriately, regardless of whether or not the judgment was affected. They may be financial relationships, family ties, personal relationships, academic rivalry, or other ties. The time frame for the statement is that of the work involved (research, review, editing) from the initial conception and planning to the present.

Any complaint against the journal, reviewers, or authors should be addressed in the first instance to the editorial team, and in the case of complaints against the editorial team, they should be addressed to the director of the journal. Based on the review of the information provided, the director may constitute a panel composed of members of the Scientific Committee of the journal to review the complaint. If the complaint involves the director, it should be directed to a member of the Scientific Committee who will review the background information and may, if the case warrants, constitute a panel to review the complaint.

Any appeal against an editorial decision should be made by contacting the editorial team of the journal who will review the background information provided. Based on this review, the editorial team may constitute a panel composed of members of the Scientific Committee of the journal to review the appeal.