Code of ethics

The Revista Internacional & Comparada de Derechos Humanos strictly adheres to the international standards of academic integrity and scientific honesty established by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). All parties involved in the editorial process (authors, members of the Editorial board, and peer reviewers) must know, accept, and mandatorily apply the ethical commitments contained within this code.

 

  1. Obligations and responsibilities of the Editorial board
  • Transparency and impartiality: The Editorial board will evaluate received manuscripts exclusively based on their scientific merit and academic relevance, without distinction of race, gender, sexual orientation, religious beliefs, ethnic origin, nationality, or institutional affiliation of the authors.
  • Absolute confidentiality: Members of the editorial team commit to not disclosing any information regarding received manuscripts to individuals outside of the technical review and peer dictamination processes.
  • Guarantee of anonymity: The Editorial board will ensure strict compliance with the double-blind peer review system for doctrinal articles, verifying that files forwarded to reviewers are entirely stripped of any data that could allow identification.
  • Conflicts of interest: Members of the Editorial board shall recuse themselves from managing or evaluating manuscripts in which they have institutional, familial, personal, or recent co-authorship ties with the signing participants.

 

  1. Obligations and responsibilities of peer reviewers
  • Technical judgment and objectivity: Reviews must be conducted in a neutral, honest, and respectful manner. Personal judgments or unsubstantiated scientific disqualifications are strictly prohibited; every observation within the evaluation form must be supported through its rationale section.
  • Compliance with deadlines: Reviewers commit to delivering their evaluation within the established timeframe of 4 to 6 weeks. If an impediment due to force majeure arises, they must formally notify the Editorial coordination immediately.
  • Confidentiality and use of information: The manuscript received for evaluation is a confidential document. Reviewers may not retain, reproduce, plagiarize, or utilize its data or arguments before the article is formally published.
  • Guarantee of double-blind integrity: If, during the reading of the manuscript, a reviewer detects data, references, or clues that unequivocally reveal the authorship identity, they must halt the evaluation and notify the Editorial Board to reassign the text.

 

  1. Obligations and responsibilities of authors
  • Originality and honesty: Manuscripts must be original and unpublished works. Simultaneous submission to two or more scientific journals is prohibited, as is the redundant fragmentation of a single research project without explicit theoretical justification.
  • Rigorous attribution of credits: Authors must cite and reference every source, doctrine, ruling, or regulation utilized in the development of the text, guaranteeing the total absence of plagiarism.
  • Transparency in conflicts of interest and funding: Any economic, labor, ideological, or institutional relationship that could bias the results of the research must be explicitly declared, alongside the agencies or organizations that funded the study.
  • Ethical use of AI: In compliance with the journal's AI Policy and the Heredia Declaration, authors declare that they have not introduced sensitive data into algorithms, guarantee the application of human screening in permitted uses, and commit to not registering an AI as a co-author of the text.
  • Methodological integrity: In research involving the direct participation of individuals or the handling of protected data, authors must documentally certify the use of informed consents and the corresponding ethical clearances.

 

  1. Protocol for suspected scientific misconduct

Should signs of plagiarism, citations manipulation, or the illegitimate use of generative AI be identified—whether during the initial evaluation by the editorial team, the peer review process, or subsequent to publication—the Editorial board will act as follows:

  1. Authors will be formally notified alongside the documentary or technical evidence (e.g., Turnitin report), granting them the right of reply to present the pertinent reasoned clarifications.
  2. The manuscript's evaluation process will be suspended until the clarification process is definitively resolved.
  3. The definitive rejection of the manuscript will proceed if the clarifications are not convincing in the judgment of the Editorial Board.

 

  1. Post-publication management of the academic record

The Revista Internacional & Comparada de Derechos Humanos maintains the following mechanisms to safeguard the transparency of its historical archives whenever errors or ethical issues are detected subsequent to the publication of the manuscripts:

  • Errata: A public electronic notification linked to the article will be issued when typographical, citation, or formatting errors are identified. The original PDF will remain available on the platform.
  • Formal retractions: The formal withdrawal of a contribution will proceed in cases of plagiarism, unauthorized duplicate publication, or data manipulation/fabrication.

Procedure: The original manuscript will be marked with a red diagonal watermark reading "RETRACTED / RETRACTED". The webpage metadata of the manuscript will be modified by prefixing the word "RETRACTION:" to the article's original title, and a statement signed by the Editorial Board explaining the reasons for the withdrawal will be published.

 

  1. Complaints procedure

The journal provides a transparent and fair mechanism for resolving complaints submitted by authors, reviewers, or readers.

  • Submission: Any formal complaint regarding the editorial process, rejection decisions, or the conduct of the management team must be submitted in writing to the journal’s official email address: revista.icdh@academiaidh.org.mx, providing a detailed explanation of the grounds for the complaint.
  • Resolution: The Editorial Committee will acknowledge receipt within 10 business days. The case will be referred to an impartial committee. The final decision will be issued in writing, will be duly substantiated in accordance with COPE guidelines, and will be final and non-appealable.