GENERAL PROVISIONS

Article 1. Purpose

This Code establishes the ethical principles, responsibilities and good practices to be observed by authors, reviewers, editors, members of the Editorial Committee and all other persons involved in the evaluation, editing, publication and scientific dissemination processes of SCIÉNDO, a journal of the National University of Trujillo. Its purpose is to ensure research integrity, editorial transparency, academic quality, independence of decisions, and respect for the rights of the persons and communities involved in research.

Article 2. Scope of application

This Code applies to:

1. Authors and co-authors submitting manuscripts to the journal.
2. External reviewers and specialists invited to evaluate manuscripts.
3. The director, editor-in-chief, associate editors and other members of the Editorial Committee.
4. Technical, administrative and editorial support staff who have access to manuscripts or participate in their processing.
5. Persons submitting reports, inquiries, complaints or requests for corrections concerning published content.

Its provisions cover submission, preliminary evaluation, peer review, editorial decision-making, editing, publication and post-publication follow-up.

Article 3. Regulatory framework and ethical references

This Code shall be interpreted and applied in accordance with:

The Statute, regulations and current institutional provisions of the National University of Trujillo.

The Code of Ethics for Research and other scientific integrity regulations in force at UNT.

Peruvian legislation applicable to scientific research, personal data protection, copyright and intellectual property.

The recommendations and core practices of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

SCIÉNDO's editorial policies, instructions for authors, and open access and licensing terms.

In the event of a conflict between provisions, binding legal and institutional rules shall apply, without prejudice to any additional ethical requirements established by the journal.

Article 4. General ethical principles

All persons involved in SCIÉNDO's scientific publishing activities must act according to the following principles:

Scientific integrity: producing, evaluating and communicating knowledge honestly, rigorously and verifiably.

Intellectual honesty: acknowledging other people's ideas, data, methods and contributions.

Impartiality: making decisions based on academic criteria, without discrimination or favoritism.

Confidentiality: protecting manuscripts, personal data and unpublished information.

Editorial independence: preventing personal, institutional, economic or political interests from influencing scientific decisions.

Social responsibility: recognizing the social, cultural and human implications of research.

Respect for human dignity: protecting the autonomy, privacy, identity and rights of participating persons and communities.

Transparency: declaring contributions, funding, conflicts of interest and study limitations.

Equity and inclusion: respecting cultural, linguistic, social, ethnic, generational and gender diversity.

ETHICAL RESPONSIBILITIES OF AUTHORS

Article 5. Originality and unpublished status

Authors must ensure that manuscripts submitted to SCIÉNDO are original, have not previously been published as substantially equivalent works, and are not simultaneously under consideration by another journal.

The following are prohibited:

1. Plagiarism; self-plagiarism that conceals substantial reuse of content; and the misappropriation of ideas, texts, data, images or results.
2. Duplicate or redundant publication without appropriate disclosure and editorial justification.
3. Simultaneous submission of the same manuscript to several journals.
4. Reproduction of protected materials without the appropriate citations, permissions or licenses.
5. Artificial fragmentation of research results for the purpose of multiplying publications without scientific justification.

Where preliminary versions, theses, conference papers, preprints or other outputs from the same project exist, authors must disclose them and explain their relationship to the submitted manuscript.

Article 6. Truthfulness and scientific rigor

Authors must provide truthful, sufficient and methodologically supported information. Accordingly, they must not fabricate, falsify, selectively suppress or manipulate data or results to favor a hypothesis or conclusion.

Research methods must be described clearly enough to allow critical evaluation and, where applicable, replication or verification of the study.

Authors must:

1. Report results fully and consistently with the stated objectives and methods.
2. Disclose relevant limitations, potential biases and methodological constraints.
3. Distinguish empirical results from interpretations, opinions and speculation.
4. Use tables, figures, photographs, documents and graphic materials appropriately.
5. Avoid image manipulation that changes the meaning of the results.
6. Retain research records, instruments and data for a reasonable period, in accordance with applicable regulations, consent conditions and confidentiality commitments.

Article 7. Authorship and contributions

Authorship must recognize only those who have made substantial intellectual or scientific contributions to the work and accept responsibility for its content.

All authors must:

1. Participate significantly in the conception or design of the study, the collection, analysis or interpretation of data, or the intellectual development of the manuscript.
2. Participate in drafting or critically revising the text.
3. Approve the final version submitted for publication.
4. Accept responsibility for the integrity of their contribution and cooperate in clarifying any questions that may arise.
5. Expressly consent to the submission and publication of the manuscript.

Honorary, guest or fictitious authorship is not permitted, nor is the omission of persons whose contributions warrant authorship. Technical, administrative, financial or other contributions that do not meet authorship criteria must be acknowledged where appropriate. Author order shall be agreed upon by the authors according to their actual contributions. Changes in authorship after submission must be duly justified, have the consent of all affected persons, and receive editorial authorization.

Article 8. Ethics in research involving persons and communities

Authors must ensure that research respects the dignity, autonomy, safety, privacy and rights of participants. Where required by the nature of the study, prior approval from a competent ethics committee and informed consent from participants must be obtained, in accordance with applicable laws and institutional regulations.

In particular, authors must:

1. Provide information about the purpose of the study, participation conditions, relevant risks and intended use of the information.
2. Respect voluntary participation and the right to withdraw where applicable.
3. Protect participants' identities through appropriate anonymization or pseudonymization measures.
4. Avoid unnecessary disclosure of sensitive information, identifiable testimony or data that may lead to stigmatization, retaliation or harm.
5. Obtain authorization to publish photographs, testimonies, recordings or other identifiable materials when necessary.
6. Apply additional safeguards when minors or vulnerable persons participate.
7. Respect collective rights, traditional knowledge and culturally appropriate protocols of the communities involved.

Where the methodology or subject of a study does not require ethics committee review, authors must provide justification if requested by the journal. Ethics approval does not replace informed consent or other legally required authorizations.

Article 9. Ethics in the use of sources, archives and cultural heritage

Research in the Social Sciences and Humanities must respect intellectual property, cultural rights and conditions governing access to sources.

Authors must:

1. Correctly cite primary and secondary sources, archives, testimonies and documents used.
2. Obtain appropriate authorization to reproduce photographs, manuscripts, maps, works of art, audiovisual materials and other protected resources.
3. Respect legitimate restrictions on access to, consultation, reproduction or dissemination of archives and collections.
4. Avoid uses that violate dignity, collective rights or the protection of traditional knowledge and cultural assets.
5. Explain source limitations and distinguish testimony, interpretation and documentary evidence.

Article 10. Conflicts of interest and funding

Authors must disclose any financial, employment, institutional, personal, academic or other relationship that could influence the research or interpretation of its results. They must also identify funding sources and, where applicable, disclose the role of funding bodies in study design, implementation, analysis and publication. The existence of a conflict of interest does not necessarily constitute misconduct; deliberately concealing one may compromise the integrity of the editorial process.

Article 11. Use of artificial intelligence and automated tools

Authors are responsible for all submitted content, including when generative artificial intelligence tools or other automated systems have been used. Where such use has contributed substantially to manuscript preparation, data analysis, material generation or other relevant activities, authors must disclose the tool used, its purpose and the extent of its involvement, in accordance with the journal's instructions.

The following are prohibited:

1. Presenting unverified generated references, citations, data or results as verified.
2. Using these tools to fabricate data, invent sources or produce misleading results.
3. Delegating the intellectual and ethical responsibility of authors to automated systems.
4. Entering confidential information, personal data or third-party materials into tools that do not ensure their protection, when doing so violates applicable legal or ethical obligations.

Artificial intelligence tools may not be listed as authors. Disclosure of their use does not exempt human authors from responsibility for the originality, accuracy and legitimacy of the manuscript.

Article 12. Post-publication responsibility

Authors must promptly inform the editor when they identify errors or omissions affecting the validity or interpretation of their work. Depending on the case, they must cooperate in publishing a correction, clarification, expression of concern or retraction. Unjustified refusal to cooperate in the face of substantial errors or duly substantiated ethical concerns may be reported to the relevant institution, while respecting due process.

ETHICAL RESPONSIBILITIES OF REVIEWERS

Article 13. Competence, independence and impartiality

Reviewers must possess sufficient specialized knowledge to evaluate the assigned manuscript and act independently, honestly, with academic rigor and impartiality.

They must decline an invitation when:

1. The subject substantially exceeds their expertise.
2. They do not have sufficient time to complete the review within the established deadline.
3. They have personal, professional, academic, institutional or financial relationships that may compromise their objectivity.
4. Any other circumstance may create an actual or apparent conflict of interest.

The review must be based on scientific quality, thematic relevance, originality, methodological consistency and the manuscript's contribution to knowledge in the Social Sciences and Humanities.

Article 14. Confidentiality and protection of manuscripts

Reviewers must maintain strict confidentiality regarding manuscripts received and all information accessed during evaluation.

Accordingly, they may not:

1. Share a manuscript or its contents with third parties without the editor's authorization.
2. Use unpublished data, ideas, methods, arguments or results for their own benefit or that of others.
3. Exploit manuscript information to precede the authors in publications, projects or academic activities.
4. Disclose authors' identities or attempt to contact them outside authorized channels, unless expressly authorized by the editor.
5. Upload manuscripts or confidential information to external artificial intelligence systems or other platforms where this may compromise confidentiality, intellectual property or data protection.

Reviewers must inform the editor if they believe a second expert opinion is needed, without delegating the review or sharing the document without authorization.

Article 15. Objectivity and quality of evaluation

Reviewers must provide reasoned, respectful and constructive assessments.

Their comments must:

1. Identify the manuscript's relevant strengths and weaknesses.
2. Substantiate methodological, theoretical and conceptual criticisms.
3. Identify errors, inconsistencies, limitations and possible ethical issues.
4. Recommend specific, relevant improvements.
5. Distinguish shortcomings affecting scientific validity from those correctable through presentation or writing changes.
6. Avoid discriminatory, offensive, defamatory or academically irrelevant comments.
7. Refrain from demanding unnecessary citations to their own publications or those of persons with whom they have ties, or promoting references that add no scientific value.

Reviewers may recommend acceptance, conditional acceptance subject to revisions, or rejection. The final decision rests with the competent editorial authorities, in accordance with SCIÉNDO's policies.

Article 16. Detection of possible irregularities

Reviewers must confidentially report to the editor any reasonable indication of:

Plagiarism, duplicate publication or undisclosed reuse of content.

Fabrication, falsification or manipulation of data and images.

Ethical deficiencies in research involving persons or communities.

Omission of relevant conflicts of interest.

Authorship problems or improper use of sources.

Any other practice that may compromise scientific integrity.

Reporting a suspicion does not constitute a finding of guilt. The editorial team is responsible for assessing the evidence and determining appropriate action, without requiring reviewers to conduct investigations outside their role.

Article 17. Compliance with deadlines

Reviewers must meet the deadlines set by the journal and promptly report any difficulty that could delay evaluation.

If they cannot complete the review within the established time, they must request a justified extension or decline the assignment so that another specialist can be appointed.

ETHICAL RESPONSIBILITIES OF EDITORS

Article 18. General editorial responsibility

The director, editor-in-chief, associate editors and other members of the editorial team must safeguard scientific quality, the integrity of the editorial process and compliance with this Code. Their decisions must be independent, objective, documented and based on academic criteria, without discrimination based on nationality, gender, ethnic origin, disability, institutional affiliation, theoretical orientation, political position or any other characteristic unrelated to the scientific quality of the work.

Article 19. Impartial editorial evaluation

Editors must verify that each manuscript meets the journal's formal requirements, editorial scope and ethical standards before initiating peer review. Decisions to accept, request revisions or reject a manuscript must be based on:

1. Its relevance to SCIÉNDO's focus and scope.
2. Its originality and contribution to knowledge.
3. Its theoretical and methodological soundness.
4. Consistency among objectives, methods, results and conclusions.
5. Compliance with scientific integrity and publication standards.
6. Reviewers' reports, critically assessed by the editorial team.

Decisions must not depend on commercial interests, external pressure, institutional hierarchies or personal relationships.

Article 20. Management of editorial conflicts of interest

Editors must disclose any conflicts of interest that may affect their decisions and recuse themselves where appropriate. When an Editorial Committee member submits their own manuscript or one by a close collaborator or a person with whom they have a conflict of interest, responsibility must be transferred to an independent editor with no relevant ties to the work. The editor concerned may not access unnecessary confidential information or influence reviewer selection or the final decision.

Article 21. Confidentiality and integrity of the process

Editors must ensure the confidentiality of manuscripts, reports, reviewers' identities and editorial communications, in accordance with the review model adopted by the journal. In particular, they must:

1. Protect authors' and reviewers' personal and academic information.
2. Prevent unauthorized disclosure of unpublished results.
3. Maintain sufficient records of editorial decisions and communications.
4. Prevent unauthorized access to manuscripts.
5. Manage editorial files and data securely.
6. Apply relevant privacy and data protection policies.

Article 22. Selection and supervision of reviewers

Editors must select reviewers with demonstrated expertise in the subject, academic independence and no relevant conflicts of interest. They must also:

1. Provide clear review instructions.
2. Explain review deadlines and criteria.
3. As a general rule, request at least two independent external evaluations for research and review articles, in accordance with SCIÉNDO's published policy.
4. Critically assess reports and resolve significant discrepancies where necessary.
5. Prevent peer review from being used as a means of discrimination, retaliation or favoritism.
6. Take reasonable steps to preserve reviewer anonymity in accordance with the journal's review model.

Article 23. Prevention and detection of misconduct

Editors must implement mechanisms to prevent, identify and address potential ethical violations. These may include textual similarity checks, reference verification, analysis of possible image alterations, requests for supporting documentation and verification of ethical approvals. Similarity software results must not automatically be treated as proof of plagiarism; the context, nature of matches, citations, references and characteristics of the manuscript must be examined.

Where there are reasonable indications of irregularity, editors must:

Document the case and preserve relevant evidence.

Request clarification or additional information from authors where appropriate.

Assess the seriousness of the facts and the sufficiency of evidence.

Consult COPE recommendations and, when necessary, the competent institutional authorities.

Make a proportionate and duly reasoned decision.

Communicate the decision to the parties involved, respecting confidentiality and due process.

Article 24. Editorial independence and publication of one's own work

Editorial Committee members may not participate in the review or publication decisions concerning their own manuscripts or works for which they have a conflict of interest. The journal must ensure that these works undergo the same scientific and ethical standards as other manuscripts, through independent and documented editorial management.

Article 25. Corrections, retractions and post-publication transparency

Editors are responsible for taking reasonable steps to preserve the integrity of the published scientific record. When errors, irregularities or ethical violations are detected, they must assess the need to publish:

Corrections, where errors can be remedied without invalidating the fundamental conclusions.

Expressions of concern, where significant indications are still under investigation and readers need to be alerted.

Retractions, where results or conclusions are shown to be unreliable due to serious errors, fabrication, falsification, plagiarism or other misconduct warranting such action.

Notices of withdrawal or exceptional removal, where legal, privacy, security or other circumstances require intervention regarding published content.

Measures must be transparent, proportionate and accompanied by sufficient explanation, preserving the publication record wherever possible and avoiding concealment of the case's history.

Article 26. Handling complaints and appeals

Editors must establish a procedure for receiving and evaluating complaints concerning editorial decisions, reviewers' conduct, conflicts of interest and alleged ethical violations. Appeals must:

1. Be supported by sufficient arguments and evidence.
2. Be assessed, where possible, by a person or body not involved in the conflict being challenged.
3. Receive a reasoned response within a reasonable period.
4. Be handled without retaliation against those making good-faith reports.

Complaints about conduct falling within UNT's jurisdiction must be referred to the appropriate institutional bodies where applicable.

PROCEDURE FOR ETHICAL VIOLATIONS AND SCIENTIFIC MISCONDUCT

Article 27. Conduct contrary to ethics

Possible violations of this Code include, among others:

Plagiarism, misappropriation of ideas or unauthorized use of protected materials.

Fabrication, falsification or deceptive manipulation of data, results, images or documents.

Duplicate or redundant publication, or undisclosed simultaneous submission.

Manipulation of authorship, omission of significant contributions or fictitious attribution of participation.

Deliberate concealment of conflicts of interest.

Failure to comply with obligations regarding informed consent, confidentiality or participant protection.

Misuse of confidential information obtained during peer review.

Manipulation of reports or editorial decisions to favor or disadvantage particular persons.

Retaliation, discrimination or undue pressure related to research or publication.

Deliberate obstruction of an investigation into alleged ethical violations.

Determination of a violation must consider the available evidence, intent where it can be established, the seriousness of the facts and their consequences for scientific integrity.

FINAL PROVISIONS

Submission of a manuscript to SCIÉNDO implies that authors are aware of and accept the ethical standards applicable to scientific publication. Reviewers and editors must likewise commit to fulfilling the responsibilities associated with their roles.

The journal may request declarations of originality, authorship, contributions, conflicts of interest, funding, ethics approval, informed consent and use of artificial intelligence tools, as applicable to each work.

This Code must be publicly available on SCIÉNDO's website. It will be periodically reviewed to maintain consistency with National University of Trujillo regulations, applicable legislation and international recommendations on publication ethics.