Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice Statement

Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice Statement
Our publication ethics and publication malpractice statement is based on adherence to:
  • The COPE Code of Conduct and Best-Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors

  • Ethics
    All research submitted for publication in EVALUACION DE RIESGOS LABORALES, must have been carried out within an appropriate ethics framework.

    If plagiarism or misconduct is found at the time of submission the manuscript is rejected immediately. Should for some reason plagiarism or misconduct be identified after publication then immediate actions will be taken, including but not limited to the retraction of the article, publication of a retraction notice, etc.

    Corrections & Retractions
    Should authors or reviewers identify an error in a manuscript, a correction letter will be published indicating where the mistakes were made, while the original source will be immediately corrected. In general, the COPE Guidelines for Retracting Articles are followed in this case. When faced with suspected misconduct the editors are advised to follow the relevant COPE Flowcharts. Readers may also comment on published manuscripts through the submission of a letter to the editor.

    If any authors are unhappy with the decision on their article they may appeal to the Editorial Office giving a reason why they feel the decision was incorrect. Any appeal will be reviewed by the Editor-in-Chief and one more editor with expertise on the topic and a final decision will be made. Please note that authors may only appeal once.

    Editorial Freedom
    The Editor-in-Chief has full authority over the entire editorial content of the journal.
    The Editorial board's composition is regularly reviewed, while clear guidance to editorial board members about their expected functions and duties is provided. The editorial board is also engaged twice a year with updates on publication ethics and journal strategic development.

    Provenance and peer review
    All articles submitted undergo double blind peer review. Every original article is peer reviewed by a minimum of one external expert and one member of the editorial board. In all cases the manuscript is also reviewed by the Editor-in-Chief. Letters to the Editor and Editorials are peer reviewed internally. All journal content is clearly marked as whether peer reviewed or not (internally vs. externally peer reviewed). All articles have a specific provenance and peer review tab (commissioned vs. non commissioned).
    Authors may suggest external peer reviewers that are qualified to peer review the manuscript, provided that they have not collaborated closely in the near past and that they are not from the same institution. Authors may also note peer reviewers who they would not prefer to review this paper. While the authors suggestions are taken into account, the Editorial Office reserves the right to handle peer review at its discretion. Any manuscripts received for review will and must be treated as confidential documents by the reviewers and members of the editorial board.
  • Double blind peer reviewers are requested to report on the ethical aspects of the manuscript they are allocated to review and are requested to report also on the novelty, the impact, the statistical analysis, references and potential conflicts of interest that either the author or reviewer may have.
  • All published manuscripts have a specific provenance and peer review tab (commissioned vs non-commissioned; internally vs externally peer reviewed) next to the manuscript's acknowledgements.
    Esta web utiliza cookies propias o de terceros para ofrecerte un mejor servicio. Al navegar por la web, aceptas el uso que hacemos de ellas. Puedes cambiar la configuración de cookies en tu navegador en cualquier momento.