Clepsydra defends, demands, and guarantees ethical behavior in all phases of the editorial cycle for the publication of its issues. The ethical regulations take as reference what is established by the Committee on Publications Ethics (COPE), which forms the set of guidelines for adoption by authors, editors, and reviewers.

Furthermore, in relation to fundamental human rights, Clepsydra adheres to and takes as reference the European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity by ALLEA, 2019. Thus, among other criteria, the journal will not accept any racist or sexist content, or any other that violates those rights.

The opinions and content published in this journal are the sole responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of Clepsydra, or the editors or coordinators of the journal.

Finally, Clepsydra will avoid any competing interests between authors and reviewers, as well as between them and members of the editorial team.

AUTHORS

Originality of the Works

Manuscripts submitted to the journal must be the result of original and unpublished research.

Sufficiency of Information

Sufficient information must be provided so that any specialist can repeat the conducted research and confirm or refute the interpretations defended in the work.

Authorship, Co-authorship, and Their Requirements

All individuals listed as authors must meet certain requirements to receive such designation.

Each author must have participated sufficiently to take public responsibility for the content of the work. One or more of these individuals must be responsible for the entire work, from its inception to its final publication, if applicable.

The granting of authorship credit will be based solely on their essential contribution to any of the 14 roles designated in the CRediT system and must be clearly specified along with the article submission to the journal. No modifications or additions will be accepted afterward.

Citations and References

When using materials that are not your own, the sources must be properly indicated, and it is necessary to obtain the corresponding reproduction permissions, if required.

Plagiarism

Any attempt at plagiarism will result in the rejection of the submitted manuscript or, if not previously detected, the exclusion of the publication and replacement of the former editorial decision with “Withdrawn due to plagiarism.”

Uniqueness of the Work’s Destination

Authors should not submit the same work or describe essentially the same research in more than one journal. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal does not constitute an ethical behavior.

Correction of Errors

When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in their own published work, it is the author’s obligation to promptly notify the journal, as well as cooperate in correcting the document.

REVIEWERS

Knowledge of Editorial Policies and Statements

Reviewers commit to knowing and applying the journal’s editorial policies, as well as the supplementary statements presented in the corresponding menus of the journal.

Cooperation

Reviewers or evaluators of Clepsydra will assist the Editorial Team in making a decision regarding the acceptance or rejection of a manuscript, as well as suggesting modifications that the authors may need to make for the manuscript to be published.

Confidentiality and Anonymity

All reviewers are obliged to treat the manuscript assigned to them for evaluation confidentially and, under no circumstances, should they use the information obtained in their double-blind peer review task for personal advantage.

Objectivity and Argumentation

Reviews must be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the authors is unacceptable.

Reviewers should express their views clearly and with supporting arguments, and draw attention to any relevant published work on the topic that has not been cited by the authors. Any assertion that an observation, derivation, or argument has been previously used in other works must be accompanied by the corresponding citation.

Similarity or Plagiarism Analysis

Reviewers must report to the journal any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript they are evaluating and any other published document of which they are aware.

Declining to Review

Any reviewer should decline to review a manuscript if they consider it outside their area of expertise or if, even within their expertise, they do not feel sufficiently qualified to evaluate the proposal.

Similarly, they should decline an invitation to review if they believe it will not be objective due to potential competing interests.

Research Misconduct by Authors

If a reviewer believes that the work under review involves research misconduct, they must inform the journal, which will handle each case accordingly.

EDITORIAL TEAM

Relevance of Manuscript Acceptance

The Editorial Board of the Journal is responsible for deciding which of the articles submitted are accepted and finally published.

Vigilance Against Plagiarism

The Board will remain especially vigilant against the existence of plagiarism.

Impartiality

Members will always be impartial when managing the works proposed for publication, respecting the intellectual independence of the authors, who are recognized the right of reply in case of negative evaluation.

Likewise, they must always evaluate manuscripts for their intellectual content without distinction of race, gender, sexual orientation, religious beliefs, ethnic origin, nationality, or the political orientation of the authors.

Confidentiality

The Editorial Board must not disclose information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, current or potential reviewers, editorial advisors, and, where appropriate, section editors.

Respect for Third-Party Works

None of the Board members may use data, arguments, or interpretations contained in unpublished works for their own research without the express written consent of the author(s).

Guarantee of Review Efficiency

All Board members will ensure that accepted research works are evaluated by at least two specialists in the field and that this review process has been fair and impartial. They will also value and appreciate the contribution of those who collaborate in the manuscript evaluations.