Ius Vocatio. Revista de Investigación de la Corte Superior de Justicia de Huánuco is a biannual publication. The journal receives contributions from judges of the Superior Court of Justice of Huanuco and researchers of law and justice in this judicial district, but also from national and foreign judges. This publication is addressed to magistrates, researchers, university professors, teachers, students and the public interested in the issues of academic reflection, critical work and legal research.

The articles are arbitrated anonymously by specialists from outside the institution, who take into account the following evaluation criteria: originality, contribution of the work, timeliness and contribution to legal knowledge.

In addition, for the review of articles, the anti-plagiarism software Turnitin iThenticate and other means of detection of already published texts are used, which allow the evaluation, above all, of the originality criterion: 25% of citations are admitted as part of the body of the text, from which it is understood that 75% of the article must be original.

Finally, the journal adheres to the ethical standards prescribed by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

Adherence to international declarations

The journal adheres to international conventions that guarantee research quality and honesty. Thus, it has signed the San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA), which emphasizes that the scientific content of an article is more important than the metrics of the publication and suggests an evaluation of research based on the quality of the research.

Likewise, given research involving human subjects, for example, in judicial expertise, it subscribes to the Declaration of Helsinki, which develops ethical conduct for medical research on human subjects.

 

Ethical Guidelines

These ethical guidelines are intended for all those involved in the editorial process. The journal adheres to the best practices developed by COPE to ensure good editorial conduct.

 

Ethical guidelines for authors

In order to avoid improper conduct in research, the author must assume the following commitments and obligations:

- To ensure the originality of the articles submitted to the editor and that they are unpublished works.

- To guarantee the veracity of the data presented in the manuscript.

- Bibliographic references must be in accordance with the citation model required by the journal.

- Avoid plagiarism, which is the copying of ideas from previously published papers as if they were one's own, or self-plagiarism, which is the non-citation of previously published articles.

- Notify the editor of any significant errors or inaccuracies you discover in your article.

- Agree on the order in which to sign the article, according to the level of participation and responsibilities assumed in the research process, in order to avoid authorship disputes.

- Declare conflicts of interest, whether academic, personal, economic, political or commercial, at the time of submitting the academic paper.

- Indicate the sources of funding for the research article.

- Maintain a permanent professional and respectful communication with the editors or publisher.

- Refrain from topics related to undue experimentation with or on animals and human beings.

- Manuscripts should not include photographs, videos or audios of minors, unless the need is demonstrated and authorization is obtained.

 

Ethical guidelines for reviewers

In order to carry out an objective, constructive and unbiased review that guarantees the academic quality of the manuscript submitted for evaluation, reviewers should take into account the following guidelines:

- If you accept an invitation to be a reviewer for the journal, you should consider and declare any potential conflicts of interest (professional, personal, intellectual, financial, political, or ideological) and check the journal's COI (conflict of interest) policy. If you are unsure of a potential conflict of interest that might prevent you from reviewing the manuscript, submit the issue to the editors for consideration.

- The personal and professional information they provide should be accurate and represent their subject matter expertise that will enable them to review the article and be impartial in their evaluation.

- Reviewers will understand their responsibilities regarding the confidentiality of the review process and ownership of the review product based on the peer review model the journal is using. As a result, they must refrain from using information obtained during the peer review process for personal or third-party gain. They will continue to respect the confidential nature of the review process and will not disclose the details of the manuscript after peer review, unless authorized by the author or the journal.

- They will decline the invitation to be reviewers of the journal in the following cases:

o They do not understand or accept the evaluation model or the journal's policies.

o They have an idea of who the probable authors will be and the editor confirms this circumstance.

o The editor provides information about the author and the editorial office does not indicate how possible conflicts of interest will be minimized.

o When verifying the title and the submitted abstract, they observe that they have a conflict of interest.

o If they are currently employed at the same institution as any of the authors or have recently been mentors, mentees, close collaborators, or mutual grant recipients.

o If the manuscript is very similar to one they are preparing or considering for another journal.

- The evaluation should be fair, honest, and unbiased about the strengths and weaknesses of the manuscript.

- They should not agree to review a manuscript for the purpose of getting to see it, with no intention of submitting a review.

- They will prepare the report on their own, unless expressly authorized by the journal to involve another person.

- Suggestions should be based on valid academic or technological reasons. Therefore, they should avoid making unfair negative comments or including unwarranted criticism of the work of any competitor mentioned in the manuscript. They should avoid suggesting that authors include citations of their work (or that of an associate) merely to increase the number of citations or to enhance the visibility of their own or their associates' work.

- If they find any irregularity in relation to research or publication ethics, they should contact and cooperate confidentially with the journal.

- In the event that the editor manages the manuscript and decides to make a revision of the manuscript (e.g., if another reviewer was unable to return a report), they will do so in a transparent manner and not under the guise of being an anonymous additional reviewer.

- Impersonating another individual during the review process is considered a serious offense.

Ethical Guidelines for Editors

According to COPE guidelines, in the case of Editorial Board members, the following guidelines should be taken into account:

- The Editor(s)-in-Chief and other members of the Editorial Board should fulfill the roles and responsibilities established by the journal for the quality of their editorial opinions and decisions, whether the latter are final or subject to approval by another editor.

- Identify reviewers, recruit new reviewers, edit special issues, write commentaries, columns or articles, and attend board meetings.

- Declare potential conflicts of interest, such as serving on the editorial boards of other journals that have similar goals and scope and, as a result, compete for the same manuscripts or content.

- Address and process concerns about the ethical integrity of articles within a reasonable time frame and communicate their decisions transparently.

Likewise, among other guidelines, editors should consider the following: 

- Accept or reject articles according to their relevance to the journal's purposes and to the academic and editorial considerations established for the fulfillment of its objectives.

- To ensure the quality and suitability of manuscripts.

- Ensure that manuscripts are peer-reviewed and avoid any possible conflict of interest.

- Mitigate the risks of publishing articles with major flaws and inaccurate or offensive information, and promptly adopt the necessary corrective measures.

- Safeguard compliance with the journal's ethical guidelines.

- Maintain confidentiality in the editorial process.

- Be responsible for compliance with the deadlines for review, acceptance and publication of manuscripts.

Principles of transparency and best practices in scholarly publishing

The principles of transparency and best practices in scholarly publishing should be applied to all published content, including special issues and conference proceedings.

The journal promotes accessibility, diversity, equity and inclusion in all aspects of its publications. Its editorial decisions are based on academic merit and not on the origin of the manuscript, nationality, ethnicity, political beliefs, race or religion of the authors. The journal guarantees in its policies an environment of accessibility for anyone who wishes to interact with it and periodically evaluates its policies in favor of inclusion.

Authorship and contribution conflicts

In cases of conflicts regarding authorship and contribution of the authors of an article, the data editor who received the concern will take appropriate steps to establish whether the other party should be notified of the problem that has arisen. Once a decision is made, the editor should notify the person who raised the concern.

If the dataset has not yet been published, the follow-up will involve the authors, the repository and, if appropriate, the institutions involved, for the purpose of rectifications or agreements on the case.

If the dataset has already been published, authorship, affiliation and author order can be changed with a metadata update, with the knowledge of the authors, to approve or reject changes within an appropriate time frame, without the need to notify readers.

Metadata update is the likely solution for all cases in this category.

Concerns about the integrity of published research.

Ethical concerns that have implications for the integrity or reliability of the published research record should be accompanied by evidence to support the claims made by the person expressing the concern. These concerns may include concerns of plagiarism, manipulation of images or figures, data appropriation (use without permission), data fabrication, various types of errors, authorship problems, undisclosed conflicts of interest, computer or artificial intelligence-generated manuscripts, lack of ethical approval; for human subjects research, flawed research that could have an adverse effect on public health, concerns about study design and reported results for animal research, among others.

In the event of such complaints and concerns, it is recommended that you contact us directly through our journal's central email in order to follow up directly and provide a neutral, fact-based response in accordance with the journal's ethical standards.

Only credible requests that concern the integrity of research in a publication will be considered and investigated, and any necessary action will be taken within a reasonable time frame, in accordance with COPE's established guidelines. The complainant will be informed of this.

Retraction Guidelines

The purpose of the retraction is to correct manuscripts and ensure their integrity. They alert readers to redundant publications, instances of plagiarism, manipulation of the peer review process, reuse of unauthorized material or data, copyright or other legal infringement, unethical research, and/or failure to disclose a competing interest that would have unduly influenced interpretations or recommendations.

The editor will consider retracting in the following instances:

- You have evidence that the findings are unreliable, either as a result of a major error, as a result of fabrication (e.g., of data) or falsification (e.g., manipulation of images or figures).

- There is evidence of plagiarism in the submitted manuscript.

- The findings have been previously published elsewhere without proper attribution to previous sources or proper communication to the editor of permission to republish, or justification (in cases of redundant publication).

- Contains material or data without permission for use.

- Copyright infringement or other serious legal problem (e.g., defamation, invasion of privacy, etc.).

- It reports unethical research.

- It has been published on the basis of a compromised or manipulated peer review process.

- The authors did not disclose the existence of a conflict of interest that, in the editor's judgment, would have unduly affected the interpretations of the work or the recommendations of the editors and reviewers.

Retraction notices should:

- Be linked to the retracted article whenever possible (i.e., in all online versions).

- Clearly identify the retracted article (by including the title and authors in the heading of the retraction or by citing the retracted article).

- Be clearly identified as a retraction (i.e., distinct from other types of correction or comment).

- Be published promptly to minimize harmful effects.

- Be freely available to all readers (i.e., not behind access barriers or available only to subscribers).

- Indicate who retracts the article.

- Indicate the reasons for the retraction.

- Be written objectively, supported by the facts, and use appropriate and respectful language.

Retractions will not be appropriate if:

- Authorship is in dispute, but there is no reason to doubt the validity of the findings.

- The main findings of the paper remain reliable and the correction could sufficiently address errors or concerns.

- The editor has inconclusive evidence to support the retraction or is awaiting additional information, such as from institutional research.

- The journal has been informed of conflicts of interest of the authors after publication, but which, in the editor's opinion, are unlikely to have influenced the interpretations or recommendations, or the conclusions of the article.

- A retraction notice should only cover a retracted article and be unambiguously identified as such in all online sources; it should state the reasons and basis for the retraction to enable readers to understand why the article is unreliable (it should not include speculation or be based on reasons or elements that are not properly substantiated) and should also specify who is retracting the article and possibly how the matter came to the attention of the journal (complainants may be named only when they have given their opinion or permission). Retractions should be properly labeled so that they can be identified by bibliographic databases, and include a link to the retracted article. The retraction will appear in all online searches for the retracted publication.

- Only in extremely limited cases may an article be removed from online publication, such as when the article is clearly defamatory, violates personal privacy, is the subject of a court order, or may pose a serious health risk to the general public. In such circumstances, the metadata (title and authors) should be retained and the retraction notice should clearly state why the entire article was removed.

- Publications should be retracted as soon as possible after the editor is satisfied that the publication is seriously flawed, misleading, or falls into any of the categories described above.

- If an allegation of misconduct related to a possible retraction results in a disciplinary hearing or institutional investigation, it would be appropriate to await the outcome before issuing a retraction. An expression of concern may be issued in the interim. Expressions of concern will be published when the editor has concerns or reasonable suspicions about possible misleading information in the information contained in a manuscript and is justified in wanting to warn readers about it.

- Retractions will be published jointly or on behalf of the journal editor; however, since responsibility for the content of the journal rests with the editor, the editor should always have the final decision on whether to retract material. Editors may retract publications (or issue expressions of concern) even if all or some of the authors disagree. Whoever retracts the article should be clearly identified in the retraction notice.

- If the journal has credible grounds for suspecting misconduct, it will communicate this to the authors' institutions as soon as possible, but the decision to correct or retract an article must be made by the journal and does not necessarily depend on an institutional finding. In principle, journals should raise concerns with an author before contacting institutions, but when evidence of serious misconduct is well founded, it may exceptionally contact institutions without first informing authors.

- Authors may request that articles be retracted when authorship is questioned after publication.

- In case the authors do not agree with a retraction (or whose request for retraction of a publication has been rejected), they should be reminded of the journal's editorial policies expressly established on retraction and the agreements or commitments assumed by them, as well as their due compliance. In any case, the journal will adhere to the guidelines established by COPE on the matter.