Ethical Guidelines

PUBLICATION ETHICS AND PUBLICATION MALPRACTICE STATEMENT

Límite follows the guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). 

Ethical Oversight

In the case of research involving human subjects or animals, researchers must make a statement in the Methods section of their article, indicating that they have had the approval of the Ethics Committee of the Institution to which they belong. 

For research involving human subjects, informed consent is required and authors should explain how it was obtained. 

Conflicts of Interest

Potential conflicts of interest should be disclosed. In order to disclose possible conflicts of interest, grants from financial agencies, consultancies paid by institutions that are part of the research or participation of researchers on the board of directors of companies related to the research should be indicated.

Information on possible conflicts of interest should be provided in a separate document from the text.
The conflict of interest, in the case of the author, must be declared at the time of submission of the publication. If any undeclared conflict of interest is detected during the evaluation process, the author will be contacted for clarification. If the explanation is not satisfactory, the manuscript will be withdrawn from the evaluation process.

In the case of a conflict of interest in an already published research, the manuscript will be withdrawn from the journal, explaining in an announcement the reasons that led to the decision. In addition, the association or institution hosting the author(s) in question will be contacted to inform of the fact.

Data sharing and reproducibility

Límite encourages authors to share their research data where relevant, including raw data, processed data, software, protocols, methods, and materials, among others. Authors may be asked to submit raw research data along with the main article. Authors should be ready to present the required data to the editorial board and the reviewers when necessary. 

Límite encourages authors to share the data and other materials supporting the results of their research by archiving them in an appropriate public repository. Authors may provide a data availability statement, including a link to the repository they have used (with a persistent identifier, e.g., a DOI) to publish this statement in their paper. 

Authorship criteria

Authors must ensure the originality of the article. They should also make clear the sponsorship, patronage or origin of the publication, academic affiliation and institutional or external funding received. In case of mentioning other sources, authors or experiences, they should acknowledge them as not their own. Plagiarism in any form constitutes a serious breach of publication ethics (assume the APA 7th edition standards about plagiarism). The same applies to self-plagiarism, i.e., presenting one's own previous texts as new. Authors should not submit the same article to several journals or publications at the same time.

The lead author must ensure that co-authors have given their consent to the publication of the article in the form submitted to the journal. Authors should send through the journal's editorial platform, in two separate files, the anonymized article (without indicating implicitly or explicitly the identity and academic affiliation of the authors and their sources of funding) and the other document, the data such as names, academic degrees, institutional affiliation and program that finances the research.

Following the norms of the Style Manual of the APA, 7th edition, Límite considers as author whoever has actively participated in the research in addition to writing the submitted manuscript. The first author is considered to be the one who made the most significant contribution to the manuscript. Those who have made a relevant contribution to the development of the research, such as providing data, correcting the academic style of the article, making comments, among others, may be listed in the Acknowledgements of the article.

Peer Review

Editors should evaluate articles only according to their academic or scientific merit. Editors may not use any information provided by authors prior to publication for their own benefit without the author's written consent. The editors should take care of any ethical complaint and seek a solution that satisfies the complainant and preserves the good image of the journal. The editors are committed to maintaining a fluid and prompt communication with their collaborators. Likewise, to ensure freedom of expression without censoring topics or content as long as it is done in a manner consistent with an academic publication.

Manuscripts received for evaluation must be handled confidentially (double-blind peer review). Evaluators may not use the information in the texts for their own benefit. Evaluations should be objective, and comments or suggestions should be clear and well-founded for their correct use by the authors to ensure proper editing. If any reviewer does not feel qualified to judge an article, he/she should immediately inform the editors so that a competent reviewer can be found as soon as possible to replace him/her. Reviewers should not review articles from individuals, institutions, or study groups with whom they have conflicts of interest.

Good Research Practices

Studies separated from a larger study will not be accepted for submission to more journals. No fabricated or manipulated data will be accepted to favour a thesis. Authors whose names appear to contribute significantly to the research will be collectively responsible for the results. Changes in authors' names will not be accepted once the manuscript has been accepted for publication.

If relevant data or documentation is requested to verify the validity of the research, it will be the duty of the author(s) to provide the requested information.

In the event that the editors become aware of any allegations of research malpractice, the editors will address such allegations by seeking clarification and/or rectification directly from the authors. The journal will publish corrections, clarifications, retractions and apologies when necessary.

Post-publication discussions and corrections

Límite offers post-publication discussion by submitting a letter to the Editor-in-Chief.

Corrections. Límite asks authors to review and approve article proofs before publication to ensure the accuracy of the content. However, in some cases, corrections may be required post-publication. Authors can make correction requests to the Editor-in-Chief with the understanding that not all requests for post-publication changes are permitted. Errors will be indicated with the publication of a separate corrigendum (author error) or erratum (publisher error) highlighting the changes, provided the validity and integrity of the article are preserved. If updated, the article will contain a correction footnote highlighting the change(s) and a reference to the corrigendum or erratum. All corrigenda and errata will be linked to the original article.

Retractions. Límite follows COPE Retraction Guidelines in cases of major errors that compromise the article's scholarly integrity. Límite's reasons to retract an article include but are not limited to the following ones: (i) the article contains errors due to research or publication misconduct, (ii) the article was accepted through malpractice in the peer review process, (iii) the authors have not resolved ethical concerns raised on their article by the Editorial Board. 

Authors may request retraction of their own article through a letter to the Editor-in-Chief. The Editorial Team will review the request and proceed according to the COPE Retraction Guidelines. 

All retraction notices will explain the reasons for retraction and will be linked to the original article. Authors will be notified and allowed to provide comments.  

Límite may choose to notify the authors’ institution(s) or other publishers/journals if multiple articles are affected.

Removal. In exceptional cases, articles might need to be removed. However, Límite will not remove articles unless legally justified and required. 

As a general rule, Límite will follow the COPE guidelines when handling corrections, retraction, or removal of articles after publication.

Complaints and appeals process

To send a complaint to Límite, please write directly to the Editor at revlimit.uta@gmail.com. A dialogue will be established between the author and the Editorial Team to clarify the situation. Once the background information is received, the Editorial Team evaluates each case separately and delivers a verdict that cannot be appealed. The Editorial Team has a maximum of one month from the date of the first complaint to give a definitive response.

Policy on intellectual property

Limite, Interdisciplinary Journal of Philosophy and Psychology is published under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International. Authors agree that all accepted manuscripts, galleys, and related documents are immediately and irrevocably released under a Creative Commons (CC BY 4.0) license. The license will be indicated on the landing page and PDF file of each online article galley.

Authors certify that they have obtained permission from the copyright holders to reproduce tables, figures, data, and text. 

All manuscripts, revisions, drafts, and galleys remain the intellectual property of the author(s). Author(s) fully retain the copyright to their work.

Authors retain the full right to modify, reshare, repost, or archive any version of their copyrighted work.

Authors are authorized to self-archive their accepted manuscripts and the final PDF version published by the Journal once published, both on their personal websites, their profile in academic and social networks such as Academia and ResearchGate, and in other online repositories of choice, such as PhilPapers an ArXiv, among others.

As noted in the Author's Guidelines, no fees are charged to authors at any time during, before or after the publication and editorial processing.

Responsibilities of the editor and editorial team members (editorial board and associate editors).

  • Deciding which of the manuscripts submitted to the journal will be published.
  • Evaluating manuscripts exclusively based on their intellectual and scientific merit, originality and relevance to the journal, without regard to the author(s)’ ethnic origin, age, gender, sexual orientation, disability, political thinking, religious belief, citizenship, or social class;
  • Ensuring a fair and unbiased double-blind peer review of the manuscripts and that all information related to them is kept confidential. They also ensure that the identities of both authors and peer reviewers are kept confidential;
  • Providing guidance to authors, reviewers and guest editors on their duties and expected actions;
  • Ensuring that appropriate reviewers are selected for each manuscript;
  • Providing new editorial members (editorial board and associate editors) with guidelines on everything that is expected of them and keeping existing members updated on new policies;
  • Ensuring that unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript will not be used by the editor or members of the editorial team for their research purposes without the express written consent of the author;
  • Taking reasonable actions when ethical complaints are presented concerning a submitted or published manuscript. In cases of suspected misconduct, they follow the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) guidelines. 
  • Publishing corrections, clarifications, and retractions whenever justified and needed.

Authors’ responsibilities

  • Authors conducting original research should provide a truthful and objective account of their work and its significance in their reports. The data presented in the manuscript should be accurately represented without any manipulation. Engaging in fraudulent or knowingly misleading statements is considered unethical and unacceptable.
  • Authors should not submit the same manuscript simultaneously to multiple journals. This constitutes unethical publishing behaviour and is unacceptable;
  • Authors must ensure that their work is original and that any piece of other authors, contributors or sources has been appropriately acknowledged and referenced;
  • Plagiarism in any form constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable;
  • Authors must confirm that the submitted manuscript has not been published elsewhere;
  • Authorship should be restricted to those who have played a substantial role in the development, planning, implementation, or analysis of the study being reported. They should be included as co-authors. Individuals who have been involved in specific aspects of the research project should be acknowledged or recognized as contributors;
  • The corresponding author should ensure that all co-authors are included in the author list of the manuscript and that there is a complete agreement of all co-authors in approving the final version of the paper and its submission for publication;
  • Authors should disclose financial or other conflicts of interest that might influence the results or interpretation of their manuscript. All sources of financial support should be disclosed;
  • When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in his/her published work, the author must promptly notify the journal editors and cooperate to retract or correct the manuscript. 

Reviewers' responsibilities

  • Peer review assists the editor and editorial team in making editorial decisions and, through the editorial communication with the author, may also assist the author in improving the manuscript;
  • Any invited reviewer who feels unqualified to evaluate the manuscript or knows that its timely review will be impossible should notify the editor so that alternative reviewers can be assigned;
  • Manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents;
  • Privileged information or ideas obtained through the peer review process must be kept confidential and not used for personal purposes;
  • Reviewers must report to the editor if they detect copyright infringement and plagiarism on the author’s part;
  • Reviews should be conducted objectively and in a respectful manner. Comments and observations should be formulated clearly with supporting arguments so that authors can use them to improve the manuscript;
  • Reviewers must evaluate manuscripts based only on intellectual content without regard to the authors’ ethnic origin, age, gender, sexual orientation, disability, religious belief, citizenship, political thinking or social class;
  • Reviewers should not evaluate manuscripts with conflicts of interest derived from relationships or connections with any authors or institutions associated with the research reported in the manuscript.