1.    Open Access

All articles published by the Revista de Ciencias are made freely and permanently accessible online immediately upon publication, without subscription charges or registration barriers.

As authors of articles published in the Revista de Ciencias, you grant the copyright of your article to the Revista de Ciencias and the Universidad del Valle according to our Copyright and License Policy.

1.    Copyright and License

●      The copyright is granted from the author to the Universidad del Valle.

●      Authors grant the Revista de Ciencias a license to publish the article and identify itself as the original publisher.

●      The license Creative Commons BY NC SA 4.0. formalizes the terms and conditions of publishing articles.

2.    Self-Archiving Policy

Authors of articles in the Revista de Ciencias are permitted to self-archive the published version of the article (the Version of Record, which includes copy and stylistic edits, online and print formatting, citation and other linking, deposit in abstracting and indexing services, and the addition of bibliographic and other material). Self-archiving is often referred to as Green Open Access.

The published version may be placed on the following:

●     The author's personal website

●     The author's company/institutional repository or archive.

●     Not-for-profit subject-based repositories such as PubMed Central.

2.    Authorship

Authorship provides credit for a researcher's contributions to a study and carries accountability. Authors are expected to fulfil the criteria recommended by ICMJE below.

●       Substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work; or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data for the work; AND

●       Drafting the work or reviewing it critically for important intellectual content; AND

●       Final approval of the version to be published; AND

●       Agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.

In addition to being accountable for the parts of the work, an author should be able to identify which co-authors are responsible for specific other parts of the work. In addition, authors should have confidence in the integrity of the contributions of their co-authors.

All those designated as authors should meet all four criteria for authorship, and all who meet the four criteria should be identified as authors. Those who do not meet all four criteria should be acknowledged. These authorship criteria are intended to preserve authorship status for those who deserve credit and can take responsibility for the work. The criteria are not intended to disqualify colleagues from authorship who otherwise meet authorship criteria by denying them the opportunity to meet criteria #s 2 or 3. Therefore, all individuals who meet the first criterion should have the opportunity to participate in the review, drafting, and final approval of the manuscript.

The individuals who conduct the work are responsible for identifying who meets these criteria and ideally should do so when planning the work, making modifications as appropriate as the work progresses. We encourage collaboration and co-authorship with colleagues in the locations where the research is conducted. It is the collective responsibility of the authors, not the journal to which the work is submitted, to determine that all people named as authors meet all four criteria; it is not the role of journal editors to determine who qualifies or does not qualify for authorship or to arbitrate authorship conflicts. If agreement cannot be reached about who qualifies for authorship, the institution(s) where the work was performed, not the journal editor, should be asked to investigate. The criteria used to determine the order in which authors are listed on the byline may vary and will be decided collectively by the author group and not by editors. If authors request the removal or addition of an author after manuscript submission or publication, journal editors should seek an explanation and signed statement of agreement for the requested change from all listed authors and from the author to be removed or added.

When a large multi-author group has conducted the work, the group ideally should decide who will be an author before the work is started and confirm who is an author before submitting the manuscript for publication. All members of the group named as authors should meet all four criteria for authorship, including approval of the final manuscript, and they should be able to take public responsibility for the work and have full confidence in the accuracy and integrity of the work of other group authors. They will also be expected to complete disclosure forms as individuals.

Some large multi-author groups designate authorship by a group name, with or without the names of individuals. When submitting a manuscript by a group, the corresponding author should specify the group name if one exists and clearly identify the group members who can take credit and responsibility for the work as authors. The byline of the article identifies who is directly responsible for the manuscript, and the Revista de Ciencias lists the authors and the names that appear on the byline. If the byline includes a group name, the Revista de Ciencias will list the names of individual group members who are authors or who are collaborators, sometimes called non-author contributors, if there is a note associated with the byline clearly stating that the individual names are elsewhere in the paper and whether those names are authors or collaborators.

4.1 Author Contributions

The contributions of all authors must be described. The Revista de Ciencias has adopted the CRediT Taxonomy to describe each author's individual contributions to the work. The submitting author is responsible for providing the contributions of all authors at submission. We expect that all authors will have reviewed, discussed, and agreed to their individual contributions ahead of this time. Contributions will be published with the final article, and they should accurately reflect contributions to the work.

4.2 Non-Author Contributors

Contributors who meet fewer than all 4 of the above criteria for authorship should not be listed as authors, but they should be acknowledged. Examples of activities that alone (without other contributions) do not qualify a contributor for authorship are acquiring funding, general supervision of a research group or general administrative support, writing assistance, technical editing, language editing, and proofreading. Those whose contributions do not justify authorship may be acknowledged individually or together as a group under a single heading (e.g. "Clinical Investigators" or "Participating Investigators"), and their contributions should be specified (e.g., "served as scientific advisors," "critically reviewed the study proposal," "collected data," "provided and cared for study patients," "participated in writing or technical editing of the manuscript").

Because acknowledgment may imply endorsement by acknowledged individuals of a study's data and conclusions, editors are advised to require that the corresponding author obtain written permission from all acknowledged individuals.

The use of AI for writing assistance should be reported in the acknowledgment section.

4.3 Corresponding author

The corresponding author is the one individual who takes primary responsibility for communication with the Revista de Ciencias during the manuscript submission, peer-review, and publication process. The corresponding author typically ensures that all the journal's administrative requirements, such as providing details of authorship, ethics committee approval, clinical trial registration documentation, and disclosures of relationships and activities, are properly completed and reported, although these duties may be delegated to one or more co-authors. The corresponding author should be available throughout the submission and peer-review process to respond to editorial queries in a timely way and should be available after publication to respond to critiques of the work and cooperate with any requests from the journal for data or additional information should questions about the paper arise after publication. Although the corresponding author has primary responsibility for correspondence with the journal, the ICMJE recommends that editors send copies of all correspondence to all listed authors

4.4 Authorship Changes

The Revista de Ciencias follows the COPE guidelines for changes in authorship.

Changing the author list after submission requires agreement from all authors. This includes additions, deletions, and changes in ordering. Requests must come from the corresponding author, along with an explanation of how any added authors contributed to the work and why the author(s) are being added/removed after the initial submission. The corresponding author must also provide documentation to the Revista de Ciencias verifying that all authors, including any being added, deleted, or reordered, have given written consent to the change(s). Authorship change requests are subject to the Revista de Ciencias approval; we may require validation of authorship contributions from an institutional official.

The Revista de Ciencias does not generally consider requests to add or remove authors between editorial acceptance and publication of the article. If there are special circumstances that apply to your article, such as a post-accept authorship change being needed, please contact the journal office. These requests require approval by the journal's editorial team.

In the case of an authorship dispute, the journal will not arbitrate. If the authors are unable to resolve the dispute themselves, we will defer the issue to the authors' institution(s) in accordance with COPE guidelines. The journal will follow institutional recommendations following authorship investigations, with rare exceptions.

If we encounter delays resolving pre-publication authorship issues - e.g., if pre-publication authorship disputes are not resolved promptly, or if we require but have difficulty obtaining an institution's input - the Revista de Ciencias may withdraw or reject the submission. It is the author’s responsibility in such cases to follow up with one another or with the relevant institutional official(s) to resolve any pending issues. The Revista de Ciencias may consider a resubmission if/when the issue is resolved.

Authorship changes after publication are addressed via Corrections, except in rare circumstances.

We will update author bylines via silent republication (i.e., without an accompanying Correction notice) to reflect name changes of transgender or non-binary authors. Other name change requests may be granted at the journal's discretion.

4.5 Orcid

The Revista de Ciencias endorses ORCID and requires that all corresponding authors and coauthors provide an ORCID iD when submitting a manuscript.

We publish the author's ORCID iD if the manuscript is accepted. We participate in the auto-update feature implemented by Crossref, such that when a paper is published, the authors' ORCIDs are deposited and subsequently used to update each author's ORCID record.

3.    Artificial Intelligence Generated Content

Artificial Intelligence Generated Content (AIGC) tools—such as ChatGPT and others based on large language models (LLMs)—cannot be considered capable of initiating an original piece of research without direction by human authors. They also cannot be accountable for published work or research design, a generally held requirement of authorship (as discussed in the previous section), nor do they have legal standing or the ability to hold or assign copyright. Therefore—in accordance with COPE's position statement on AI tools—these tools cannot fulfil the role of, nor be listed as, an author of an article. If an author has used this tool to develop any portion of a manuscript, its use must be described transparently and in detail in the Acknowledgements section. The author is fully responsible for the accuracy of any information provided by the tool and for correctly referencing any supporting work on which that information depends. Tools used to improve spelling, grammar, and general editing are not included in the scope of these guidelines. The final decision about whether using an AIGC tool is appropriate or permissible in the circumstances of a submitted manuscript or a published article lies with the journal's Editor or other party responsible for the publication's editorial policy.

3.    Confidentiality

Editors, authors, and reviewers must keep confidential all details of the editorial and peer review process on submitted manuscripts. The peer review process is confidential and anonymous; the reviewers' identities are not released. Reviewers must maintain the confidentiality of manuscripts. If a reviewer wishes to seek advice from colleagues while assessing a manuscript, the reviewer must consult with the Editor and ensure that confidentiality is maintained and that the names of any such colleagues are provided to the Revista de Ciencias with the final report. Regardless of whether a submitted manuscript is eventually published, correspondence with the Revista de Ciencias, referees' reports and other confidential material must not be published, disclosed, or otherwise publicized without prior written consent. Reviewers should be aware that it is our policy to keep their names confidential and that we do our utmost to ensure this confidentiality. We cannot, however, guarantee the confidentiality of this information in the face of a successful legal action to disclose identity.

The Revista de Ciencias reserves the right to contact funders, regulatory bodies, journals, and the authors' institutions in cases of suspected research or publishing misconduct, being mindful of sensitivities around confidentiality.

4.    Conflict of interest

A competing interest is anything that interferes with or could reasonably be perceived as interfering with, the full and objective presentation, peer review, editorial decision-making, or publication of research or non-research articles submitted to the Revista de Ciencias.

Competing interests can be financial or non-financial, professional, or personal. Competing interests can arise in relationship to an institution, organization, or another person.

Declaring all potential competing interests is a requirement at the Revista de Ciencias and is integral to transparent research reporting.

Failure to declare competing interests can result in immediate rejection of a manuscript. If an undisclosed competing interest comes to light after publication, the Revista de Ciencias will act according to COPE guidelines and issue a public notification to the community.

7.1 What to Declare?

Everyone involved in the peer review process, including authors, editors, reviewers, and readers, must declare all potentially competing interests that occurred within 5 years of conducting the research under consideration or preparing the article for publication.

Interests outside the 5-year time frame must also be declared if they can reasonably be perceived as competing according to the definition above.

7.2          Financial competing interests

Financial competing interests include but are not limited to:

-        Ownership of stocks or shares - Paid employment or consultancy

          - Board membership

          - Patent applications (pending or actual), including individual applications or those belonging to the institution to which the authors are affiliated and from which the authors may benefit

          - Research grants (from any source, restricted or unrestricted)

          - Travel grants and honoraria for speaking or participation at meetings

          - Gifts

7.3          Non-financial competing interests

Non-financial competing interests include but are not limited to:

-        Acting as an expert witness.

-        Membership in a government or other advisory board.

-        Relationship (paid or unpaid) with organizations and funding bodies, including nongovernmental organizations, research institutions, or charities.

-        Membership in lobbying or advocacy organizations

-        Writing or consulting for an educational company.

-        Personal relationships (e.g. friend, spouse, family member, current or previous mentor, adversary) with individuals involved in submitting or evaluating a paper, such as authors, reviewers, editors, or members of the editorial board of the journal.

Personal convictions (political, religious, ideological, or other) related to a paper's topic that might interfere with an unbiased publication process (at the stage of authorship, peer review, editorial decision-making, or publication).

7.4 Who must declare competing interests?

Authors

At the time of submission, authors must list all competing interests relevant to the submitted research. The ICMJE has developed a Disclosure Form to facilitate and standardize authors' disclosures.

Examples may include but are not limited to:

-        Names of all funding sources.

-        Description of the founder's role in the study design; collection, analysis, and interpretation of data; writing of the paper; and/or decision to submit for publication.

-        Whether they have served or are currently serving on the editorial board of the journal.

-        Whether they have acted as an expert witness in relevant legal proceedings.

-        Whether they have sat or currently sit on a committee for an organization that may benefit from the paper's publication.

Editors and reviewers

Editors and reviewers must declare their own competing interests and, if necessary, disqualify themselves from involvement in the assessment of a manuscript.

Common reasons for editors and reviewers to recuse themselves from the peer review process may include but are not limited to:

-        They work at the same institution or organization as the author, currently or recently.

-        They collaborate with an author, currently or recently.

-        They have published with an author during the past 5 years.

-        They have held grants with an author, currently or recently.

-        They have a financial relationship with the company that funded the research.

-        They have a personal relationship with an author that does not allow them to evaluate the manuscript objectively.

7.5 Editorial Actions and Decisions

The editor must take all competing interests into account during the review process and ensure that any relevant ones are declared in the published article.

The editor will not publish commissioned or any other non-research articles if they are aware of a competing interest that, in their judgment, could introduce bias or a reasonable perception of bias.

Editors do not consult reviewers with competing interests that, in the editors' judgment, could interfere with unbiased review.

8.    Misconduct

The Revista de Ciencias takes seriously all allegations of potential misconduct. We will follow the COPE guidelines outlining how to deal with cases of suspected misconduct.

In cases of suspected research or publication misconduct, it may be necessary for the Editor to contact and share manuscripts with third parties, for example, the author(s)' institution(s) and ethics committee(s). The journal may also seek advice from COPE  and discuss anonymized cases in the COPE Forum.

8.1 Research misconduct

If there is suspicion that research has not taken place within an appropriate ethical framework, the Editor may reject a manuscript and may inform third parties, for example, the author(s)' institution(s) and ethics committee(s).

In cases of proven research misconduct involving published articles, or where the scientific integrity of the article is significantly undermined, articles may be retracted. See our Retraction policy for further information.

8.2 Data falsification and fabrication

Data falsification is manipulating research data with the intention of giving a false impression. This includes manipulating images, removing outliers or "inconvenient" results, changing, adding, or omitting data points, etc. Data fabrication means the making up of research findings.

Any questions regarding data integrity raised during or after the peer review process will be referred to the Editor. The Editor may request (anonymised) underlying study data from the author(s) for inspection or verification. If the original data cannot be produced, the manuscript may be rejected or, in the case of a published article, retracted. Cases of suspected misconduct will be reported to the author(s)' institution(s).

9.    Duplicate publication

Material submitted to the Revista de Ciencias must be original and not published or concurrently submitted for publication elsewhere.

Authors submitting a contribution to our journal with related material under consideration or in press elsewhere should upload a clearly marked copy at the time of submission and draw the editor's attention to it in their submission letter. Authors must disclose any such information while their contributions are under consideration by our journal- for example, if they submit a related manuscript elsewhere that was not written at the time of the original submission.

If part of a contribution that an author wishes to submit to our journal has appeared or will appear elsewhere, the author must specify the details at the time of the submission. Consideration by our journal is possible if the main result, conclusion, or implications are not apparent from the other work, or if there are other factors.

The Revista de Ciencias will consider submissions containing material that has previously formed part of a PhD or other academic thesis that has been published according to the requirements of the institution awarding the qualification. The Revista de Ciencias endorses the policies of the ICMJE in relation to overlapping publications.

If an author of a submission is re-using a figure or figures published elsewhere, or that is copyrighted, the author must provide documentation that the previous publisher or copyright holder has given permission for the figure to be re-published. The journal editor considers all material in good faith that their journals have full permission to publish every part of the submitted material, including illustrations.

10. Plagiarism

Plagiarism is not acceptable in the Revista de Ciencias submissions. Plagiarized content will not be considered for publication. If plagiarism is identified, we will follow COPE guidelines.

Plagiarism includes, but is not limited to:

-        Directly copying text from other sources without attribution.

          - Copying ideas, images, or data from other sources without attribution.

          - Reusing text from your own previous publications without attribution or agreement of the Editor (see the COPE guidelines on text recycling and the text recycling guidance released by the Text Recycling Research Project).

Exception: Reusing text from the Methods section in the author's previous publications, with attribution to the source, is acceptable.

Using an idea from another source with slightly modified language without attribution.

The Revista de Ciencias uses Turnitin to screen submitted content for originality. We will follow up to see if the software raises any concerns.

The manuscript may be rejected if plagiarism is detected during the peer review process. If plagiarism is detected after publication, we may issue a correction or retract the paper, as appropriate. We reserve the right to inform authors' institutions about plagiarism detected either before or after publication.

We expect that editors and reviewers will be vigilant in their evaluation of the Revista de Ciencias submissions and will notify the journal about any plagiarism identified.

10.         Citations

Research articles and non-research articles must cite appropriate and relevant literature in support of the claims made. Excessive self-citation coordinated efforts among several authors to collectively self-cite, gratuitous and unnecessary citation of articles published in the Revista de Ciencias to which the paper has been submitted, and any other form of citation manipulation is inappropriate.

Citation manipulation will result in the article being rejected and may be reported to authors' institutions. Similarly, any attempts by peer reviewers or editors to encourage such practices should be reported by authors to the publisher.

Authors should consider the following guidelines when preparing their manuscript:

●      Any statement in the manuscript that relies on external sources of information (i.e. not the authors' own new ideas or findings or general knowledge) should use a citation.

●      Authors should avoid citing derivations of original work. For example, they should cite the original work rather than a review article that cites an original work.

●      Authors should ensure that their citations are accurate (i.e. they should ensure the citation supports the statement made in their manuscript and should not misrepresent another work by citing it if it does not support the point the authors wish to make).

●      Authors should not cite sources that they have not read.

●      Authors should preferentially not cite their own or their friends', peers', or institution's publications.

●      Authors should avoid citing work solely from one country.

●      Authors should not use an excessive number of citations to support one point.

●      Ideally, authors should cite sources that have undergone peer review where possible.

●      Authors should not cite advertisements or advertorial material.  

11.         Corrections and Retractions

Rarely, it may be necessary for the Revista de Ciencias to publish articles’ corrections or retractions to maintain the integrity of the academic record.

Corrections to, or retractions of, published articles will be made by publishing a Correction or a Retraction note bidirectionally linked to the original article. Any alterations to the original article will be described in the note. The original article remains in the public domain, and the subsequent Correction or Retraction will be widely indexed. If material is considered to infringe certain rights or is defamatory, we may have to remove that material from our site and archive sites.

Authors, readers, or organizations who become aware of errors or ethical issues in a published article are encouraged to contact the journal in the first instance via the contact details available on the journal website. All reports will be considered by the Editor; additional expert advice may be sought when deciding on the most appropriate course of action. The Editor will address publication ethics issues in a COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics)-compliant manner.

12. 1 Corrections

Changes to published articles that affect the interpretation and conclusion of the article but do not fully invalidate the article will, at the Editor(s)' discretion, be corrected via publication of a Correction that is indexed and bi-directionally linked to the original article.

12.2 Retractions

On rare occasions, when the interpretation or conclusion of an article is substantially undermined, it may be necessary for published articles to be retracted. The Revista de Ciencias will follow the COPE guidelines in such cases. Retraction notices are indexed and bi-directionally linked to the original article. The original article is watermarked as retracted, and the title is amended with the prefix "Retracted article"

12.3 Editorial Expressions of Concern

When the Editor becomes aware of serious concerns regarding interpretation or conclusion of a published article, they may choose to publish a statement alerting the readership. Scenarios in which Editorial Expressions of Concern may be published include prolonged investigations of very complex cases and when the concerns may have a significant and immediate impact on public health or public policy. An Editorial Expression of Concern may be superseded by a subsequent Correction or Retraction but will remain part of the permanent published record.

12.4 Removal of published content

In exceptional circumstances, the Revista de Ciencias reserves the right to remove an article or other content from our platform. Such action may be taken when (i) The journal has been advised that content is defamatory, infringes a third party's intellectual property right, right to privacy, or other legal right, or is otherwise unlawful; (ii) a court or government order has been issued, or is likely to be issued, requiring removal of such content; (iii) content, if acted upon, would pose an immediate and serious risk to health. Removal may be temporary or permanent. Bibliographic metadata (e.g. title and authors) will be retained and will be accompanied by a statement explaining why the content has been removed.

13. Citing articles

Articles in the Revista de Ciencias should be cited in the same way as articles in a traditional journal. Because articles are not printed, they do not have page numbers; instead, they are given a unique article number.

Article citations follow this format:

Authors. (year). Title. Journal, volume (number), [article number]. DOI direction web

14. Peer review Policy

The Revista de Ciencias relies on members of the scientific research community to assess the validity of articles under consideration through peer review.

The primary purpose of peer review is providing the Editor with the information needed to reach a fair, evidence-based decision that adheres to the journal's editorial criteria. Review reports should also help authors revise their paper such that it may be accepted for publication. Reports accompanied by a recommendation to reject the paper should explain the major weaknesses of the research; this will help the authors prepare their manuscript for submission to a different journal.

Peer reviewers should adhere to the principles of COPE's Ethical Guidelines for Peer-reviewers.

14.1 Invitation to Review

The Revista de Ciencias´s editor selects potential reviewers based on their expertise in research areas relevant to the manuscript under consideration. Reviewer invitations are sent by email from the journal's Editorial Manager submission system (OJS). Use the links in the invitation email to accept or decline. Accept an invitation only if you have the knowledge, time, and objectivity necessary to provide an unbiased assessment of the research.

14.2 Our peer review model

Double-Blind Peer Review

The Revista de Ciencias uses double-blind review, which means that both the reviewer and author identities are concealed from the reviewers, and vice versa, throughout the review process. 

To facilitate this, authors need to ensure that their manuscripts are prepared in a way that does not give away their identity. 

14.3 Best practices for reviewers

Declaring competing interests

A competing interest is anything that interferes with or could be perceived as potentially interfering with, a thorough and objective assessment of a manuscript. Common examples of competing interests may include:

          - A recent or current collaboration with any of the authors.

          - Direct competition or a history of scientific conflict with any of the authors.

          - An opportunity to profit financially from the work.

Do not accept a review assignment if you have a competing interest, or don't feel able to give an objective assessment. Contact the journal for advice if you're unsure whether your relationship qualifies as a competing interest. If we ask you to complete the review, be sure to declare your competing interest when you submit it.

Confidentiality

Keep manuscripts and correspondence confidential and do not share information about submissions with anyone else unless previously agreed with the Editor. We expect that reviewers will not make use of any material or take advantage of any information they gain through the peer review process.

Read the Revista de Ciencias Confidentiality Policy.

Reviewing a manuscript you've previously reviewed.

If you reviewed the article in another journal, consider the manuscript as a new submission unless instructed otherwise. Keep in mind that it may have been revised since the last time you evaluated it, and the Revista de Ciencias´s criteria for publication may differ from those of the other journal. When you submit your review, let the Editor know that you reviewed a previous version of the manuscript at another journal.

Time to review

Aim to complete your review within 15 days. If you need more time to perform the review, please email us as soon as possible.

14.4 Peer reviewer recognition

The Revista de Ciencias is committed to recognizing the invaluable service performed by our dedicated peer reviewers. As part of our appreciation program, we

offer our peer reviewers the opportunity to credit their ORCID profile with verified peer review data transmitted directly from the submission system at the time of report submission.

15. CrossMark Policy

CrossMark is a multi-publisher initiative to provide a standard way for readers to locate the authoritative version of an article or other published content. By applying the CrossMark logo, the Revista de Ciencias is committing to maintaining the content it publishes and alerting readers to changes when they occur.

Clicking the CrossMark logo on a document will tell you its status and may also give you additional publication-record information about the document.

For more information on CrossMark, please visit the CrossMark site.

The Revista de Ciencias content that will have the CrossMark logo is restricted to current and future journal content.

  Last update: June 2024