Ethical Considerations

1) In the event that an editor, reviewer, reader or reader suspects that:
a)    A publication is redundant or duplicate
b)    There is plagiarism in a contribution received in CAPIC Review (text similarity > 20%).
c)    There is plagiarism in an article already published in CAPIC Review
d)    There is invented data in a contribution received in CAPIC Review
e)    There are invented data in a contribution already published in CAPIC Review
f)    There is a conflict of interest or an ethical problem in a contribution received or published in CAPIC REVIEW

In the above cases, the Editor must be informed by letter or email of the situation with all the background information relating to the detected irregularity, accompanying the documentation, data and sources on which their suspicion is based. The editor thanks the information received and nominates an ad-hoc research commission considering the area of knowledge or theme of the contribution received or published and informs the authors of the start of the research that will be reserved. If the commission after studying the background and using alternative mechanisms to resolve the conflict such as: mediation, conciliation, negotiation and arbitration, concludes with the corresponding grounds the innocence of the perpetrators in the irregularity, the editor will inform the perpetrators in writing the closure of the investigation and present with the corresponding excuses. If the irregularity is verified, the commission will recommend the rejection, and the editor will inform the authors of the rejection of the submitted work with reasons and in writing.

2) If any of the following requests are made to the publisher:
a)    Add an additional author before publication. In this case, the person requesting the aggregation will be consulted on the grounds of the request. Everyone originally listed in the post will also be queried. If there is reasonableness, grounds, the request will be approved, after consulting the two external peers, experts, reviewers who acted in the review of the article sent to CAPIC Review.
b)    Adding, removing an author in an article after publication, these requests will be rejected, considering that:
b1)    The time elapsed between the receipt of the article and the publication allows such request to be submitted in a timely manner.
b2)    It is clearly stated in the “Submission preparation checklist” that all authors must be included, especially since authorship is part of the article metadata.