This Guide includes a series of basic principles of conduct for the people in charge of managing, editing, reviewing, and authoring the articles that appear in the Boletín de la Asociación Española de Entomología (hereinafter "this journal").
This journal adheres to the ethical principles and procedures set forth in the Code of Good Scientific Practice of the Superior Council of Scientific Research of Spain (http://www.csic.es/etica-en-la-investigacion) and by the Code of Conduct and the Best Practices Guidelines for Journal Editors of COPE, the Committee on Publication Ethics (https://publicationethics.org/). This journal also reserves the right to withdraw and remove any article that violates the Code of Good Scientific Practice.
1. Course of action of the editorial team
The Editorial Committee and the Scientific Committee (hereafter the "Editorial Team") are responsible for the published matter and will seek scientific quality regarding the methods used for reaching results and their relationship to the conclusions drawn. Furthermore, the Editorial Team will strive to maintain a reasonable handling period for manuscripts so as not to compromise the interests of authors and readers.
Statistical data on editorial management will be provided on the journal´s website: average time between submission of manuscripts and the first editorial decision, average time between acceptance and publication of papers, number of papers received, number of papers rejected, number of submissions accepted, and number of works published, measured in annual periods from January to December. Statistical data on the visibility of the journal will also be included.
The principles on which the actions of the Editorial Team are based are the following:
1.1 Impartiality
The Editorial Team is committed to treating manuscripts submitted for publication impartially. It will respect the intellectual independence of the authors by providing means to present rebuttals to objections raised in the review process.
1.2 Confidentiality
The Editorial Team is committed to guaranteeing confidentiality regarding manuscripts received and their content until they have been accepted for publication, or permanently if they are rejected. The Editorial Team is not permitted to use the data, results, or conclusions presented in the manuscripts in any way until after publication, except with the express consent of the authors.
1.3 Review of manuscripts
The Editorial Team of this journal reserves the right to maintain reviewer anonymity, except by the express authorization of the reviewer for name disclosure. The evaluation will be made by two reviewers with expertise in the field and with full knowledge of the language in which the manuscript is written. If the evaluation is negative, i.e., with an express recommendation not to publish, the Editorial Committee will admit a rebuttal by the main author and may request, if deemed necessary, the participation of a new reviewer. After having read the arguments of both sides, the Editorial Committee will make a final decision, thereby concluding the review process.
Absence of plagiarism and authenticity of the data are the basic criteria for acceptance of manuscripts.
The Editorial Committee will ensure that submitted manuscripts receive a fair and impartial review, and are always willing to justify their opinions and explain their decisions in any controversy that might emerge during the evaluation process.
1.4 Acceptance or rejection of manuscripts
The responsibility of accepting or rejecting a manuscript for publication falls first and foremost on the Editorial Committee, which will consider whether the manuscript lacks the required scientific quality, fails to fit the objectives of the journal, or shows evidence of scientific misconduct, including plagiarism or simultaneous submission to other journals without having acknowledged doing so.
Having passed this screening, manuscripts will be accepted according to the reports received from the respective reviewers. The final decision on acceptance or rejection of the manuscripts lies with the Editorial Committee.
1.5 Deauthorization and notification of irregularity
The Editorial Team reserves the right to deauthorize any already published manuscripts that are subsequently found to lack reliability, whether from involuntary errors or misconduct such as manipulation or copying of data, plagiarism, inclusion of redundant or duplicated data, omission of decisive references, or using resources without permission or justification. Deauthorization is meant to correct already published scientific production as necessary in order to guarantee its ongoing integrity.
A manuscript will be deauthorized as soon as possible, with the decision being published both in the printed version of the journal and in the digital version, citing the reasons behind this measure in order to disclose the bad practice and to prevent the paper from being cited in its field of research. The Editorial Committee will inform the institution of the author(s) concerning this deauthorization.
Deauthorized works will be preserved in the electronic edition as a clear and unequivocal warning that the article has been deauthorized. In the printed edition, deauthorization will be announced as briefly as possible by means of an editorial or communication, in the same terms as in the electronic version.
Inadvertent publication of a manuscript in more than one journal can be resolved by determining the date of reception and acceptance of the manuscript in each of the journals involved.
The presence of some major inadvertent errors in an already published paper can be remedied by publishing an editorial note or erratum.
1.6 Manuscript preparation guidelines for authors
The journal displays on its webpage, as well as in each of its volumes, the publication guidelines for authors for presenting original manuscripts, covering aspects such as length, sections, citations, bibliography, tables, figures, and images. All of these guidelines must be followed by the authors.
1.7 Conflicts of interest
When the list of authors includes a member of the Editorial Team, this member will abstain from the evaluation process of the submitted manuscript.
2 Authorship of manuscripts
2.1 Publication guidelines
The manuscripts submitted must be the result of original, unpublished research, providing sufficient information for any specialist to repeat the research or to evaluate the conclusions.
The author is required to provide appropriate mention of the origin of the ideas in the text, or cite information taken from other already published sources, in accordance with universal ethics and the publication guidelines of the journal.
Images and figures that are not original may only be included with the explicit permission for reproduction by the original author or the representative of the rights of the author.
2.2 Originality and plagiarism
Plagiarism in any form, multiple or redundant publication, and the invention or manipulation of data constitute grave breaches of ethics and are considered scientific misconduct. Therefore, authors must guarantee in the first communication that their manuscripts are the result of their original work, that the data were gathered in an ethical manner, and that they were not previously published nor under review by any other journal. This journal will reject any manuscript that fails to fulfil these conditions.
2.3 Authorship of the manuscript
Authorship of a work should include those who have sufficiently contributed to the work, participated in its writing, and agree with that authorship and responsibility for publication. If these contributions are not of sufficient magnitude to justify authorship, inclusion in acknowledgments may be appropriate.
The authors must inform the Editorial Committee when sending an article for possible publication about the criteria chosen to decide the order of authors and about the specific contribution made by each of them to the work.
Changes in the authorship of a work will not be accepted once it has been accepted for publication. Changes during the review process will be conditional on their justification.
In the case of multiple authors, the main author must acknowledge all the co-authors and ensure that they have reviewed and approved the final version of the manuscript, and that they share responsibility for the manuscript. Unless otherwise stipulated, the first author will be considered the contact person and the one responsible for the manuscript.
2.4 Sources of information
In the text of the manuscript, the author(s) should acknowledge the original sources on which the information of the study was based, but it is not necessary to cite references for generally established scientific knowledge.
References to personal communications should be reduced to a minimum and when necessary, the author(s) should have explicit permission from the person cited. The text should clearly reflect the origin of such a commentary or reference.
2.5 Significant errors in published works
Should the authors discover a serious error in their work, they must inform the journal as soon as possible and make a rectification, if possible, or retraction of the manuscript. If it has already been published in the printed version, it should be retracted or an erratum published.
2.6. Reference to open access data
Authors are encouraged to deposit supplementary material, at a minimum the research data underlying the paper, in open access institutional or thematic repositories federated in the European Open Science Cloud (EOSC), if possible. In these cases, the complementary material deposited in public repositories will be related to the work through unique and persistent identifiers.
2.7 Use of artificial intelligence tools
The cover letter sent to the Editorial Committee with the manuscript must include an explicit statement about the use or non-use of any Artificial Intelligence tools. If so, the tools used must be listed and their use indicated.
2.8 Funding policy and conflict of interest
The agencies or entities that have funded the published research must be identified, indicating all sources of funding or grants obtained for the work, with their codes if available, as well as any commercial, financial, or personal ties that may be related to the work.
3 Manuscript evaluation
3.1 Participation by specialists in the evaluation process
The Editorial Committee will choose (at least) two specialists to evaluate each submission, according to the suitability of their curriculum and their publications in the subject/area. In this decision the author(s) may be advised by associate editors of specific subject areas, as well as submitting it for consideration by the Scientific Committee of the journal, identified on the journal´s website https://www.entomologica.es/publicaciones-boletin-equipo-editorial.
Authors who submit a manuscript for evaluation may propose the names of up to three experts in the subject/area for the evaluation. The Editorial Committee is free to request evaluation from the experts proposed by the authors, or not. In the event that the author or authors explicitly communicate their refusal to be evaluated by a specific specialist, the Editorial Committee will take their request into account, if the allegations are considered reasonable.
Communications between the Editorial Committee and the reviewers follow a standardized procedure: 1) request for review including the title and abstract of the work to be evaluated, 2) sending the complete work for evaluation and review template after acceptance of the task; 3) reminder, if applicable, of the review time; 4) confirmation of receipt of the completed review; 5) second round of reviewing if necessary; 6) information about the final decision made by the Editorial Committee.
Reviewers will receive a review template in order to facilitate, standardize, and objectify the evaluation process of submissions. They must specifically indicate whether they consider that a work should be accepted, if minor changes are required for its acceptance, if major changes are required for its possible acceptance, or if it should be rejected.
3.2 Confidentiality
Manuscripts received are confidential documents with content that cannot be divulged or used personally until their final acceptance. Rejection of a manuscript does not alter its confidential nature.
3.3 Objectivity
The reviewers should defend their criticisms appropriately and should be objective and constructive in their comments without hostility or personal offence against the authors, respecting the intellectual independence of the authors.
In addition to the scientific and literary quality of manuscripts, it is also the duty of the reviewer to call attention to any substantial similarity between the manuscript under review and any other published research or manuscript in the process of evaluation at another journal, as well as the existence of plagiarism, falsification, or invention of data.
3.4 Promptness of the response
Reviewing should be a rapid process, and therefore the reviewer should notify the Editorial Committee of any delay or failure to meet the agreed deadline.
3.5 Acknowledgement of sources of information
Reviewers should confirm that relevant literature on the subject has been correctly cited and should suggest any pertinent references that may be missing. The reviewer should also suggest the elimination of superfluous or redundant citations. In the event that a reviewer proposes to incorporate a citation of his/her authorship, the reviewer must specifically justify it in a comment to the Editorial Committee, as well as in the report directed to the authors of the manuscript.
3.6 Conflict of interests
If a reviewer has a professional or personal relationship with any of the authors of the work under review in any manner that could affect the decision to accept or reject the work, the reviewer should decline the request to review the manuscript.
Similarly, if the manuscript is closely related to one that the reviewer is currently working on, or to one pending publication, and these circumstances could influence the decision of the reviewer, then the task of reviewing should likewise be declined.
In the event that a reviewer proposes to incorporate a citation of his/her authorship, the reviewer must specifically justify it in a comment to the Editorial Committee, as well as in the report directed to the authors of the manuscript
3.7 Recognition of the people who carry out the evaluation
The journal considers that the people who participate in the evaluation play an essential role in the quality of the publication and therefore of the journal itself. For this reason, the journal publishes in each of its volumes the list of specialists that have participated in the review process, who have signed the review of the manuscript and have also expressly authorized the publication of their names. The number of specialists who have decided to remain anonymous will also be indicated.
Final note: In this text, as in all those published in the journal, an effort is made to follow academic rules of expression and correct use of language, including spelling, grammar, and syntax.