Ethics and Good Practices Statement

ARTxt is committed to ensuring the ethical standards of the articles it publishes, taking as its reference the Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors defined by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).
ARTxt adheres to the principles and guidelines of COPE and follows its flowcharts for handling cases of scientific misconduct.
It is essential that all parties involved in the editorial process — editors, reviewers, and authors — know and comply with the principles of this code.

Duties of Editors

Publication decision: editors will ensure the selection of the most qualified reviewers, who are scientific specialists capable of providing critical and expert assessment of the work with minimal bias.
Fairness: editors evaluate submitted manuscripts solely on the basis of scientific merit, in accordance with the journal’s editorial policy.
Confidentiality: editors and members of the editorial boards and staff undertake not to disclose information about submitted manuscripts to anyone other than the authors, reviewers, and editors. ARTxt uses a double‑blind peer‑review system, guaranteeing the anonymity of both authors and reviewers throughout the process.
Conflict of interest and disclosure: editors undertake not to use in their own research the contents of submitted manuscripts without the written consent of the author(s).
Editorial timeline: the editorial team commits to communicating in a timely manner the receipt, review outcome, decision, and acceptance, revision, or rejection of submitted works within a total period not exceeding 180 days.

Duties of Authors

Originality and plagiarism: all submitted works must be original. Authors submitting manuscripts to ARTxt affirm that the work is original, that it does not contain parts from other authors or fragments from previously published works by the authors. They also confirm the truthfulness of the data and results presented, i.e., that they are original and free of plagiarism, distortion, or manipulation of empirical data or sources used to support hypotheses or conjectures.
Exclusive submission: manuscripts submitted to ARTxt must not have been submitted simultaneously to another journal for consideration. Likewise, they must not contain, even partially, results already published elsewhere.
Source acknowledgment: authors must always correctly indicate the sources and contributions mentioned in the article.
Authorship: for articles with more than one contributor, authorship should be ranked according to responsibility and involvement in the work. All persons who have made significant scientific and intellectual contributions to the research and to the writing of the article must be included as authors.
Data access and retention: the editorial team may request from authors the data or sources on which the research is based, and authors should retain such data for a reasonable period after publication and be able to make them accessible to the editor. In any case, all data must be thoroughly anonymised.

Duties of Reviewers

Contribution to editorial decisions: individuals who undertake to review submitted works must provide a critical, constructive, and unbiased assessment, in order to ensure scientific and literary quality in their area of expertise.
Timeliness: reviewers commit to evaluating manuscripts as quickly as possible to meet deadlines, since ARTxt aims to complete evaluations promptly to optimise editorial management. Reviewers who feel unqualified for the subject matter or who cannot complete the review within the allotted time must notify the editors immediately.
Objectivity: reviews should be as objective as possible, without personal judgement of the authors. All evaluations must be justified in a report. This report should be as detailed as possible so that authors clearly understand the suggested modifications or corrections, or, in the case of rejection, the reasons for the decision. Likewise, if there is any conflict of interest, the reviewer must decline the review.
Confidentiality: manuscripts are distributed anonymously. Nevertheless, each assigned manuscript must be treated as confidential. Therefore, the content must not be discussed with others without the express consent of the authors or editors.
Acknowledgment of sources: reviewers should accurately identify relevant published works that may not have been cited by the authors. Reviewers must also bring to the editors’ attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript and other published works.
Conflict of interest and disclosure: confidential information or information obtained during the peer‑review process must be considered confidential and may not be used for personal purposes. Reviewers should only review a manuscript if no conflicts of interest exist.

Identification and Handling of Misconduct

Regarding best practices to strengthen ethics in scientific publishing, after compliance with formal requirements, the editorial process ensures that all authors review and verifiably accept responsibility for the content and record each author’s contribution at the end of the manuscript. Verification may be by signature or digital confirmation, including whether there is a conflict of interest, which must be explicitly stated in the publication.

Plagiarism and originality

To promote originality of texts, the journal employs similarity‑checking software to detect duplication with previously published works. Authors are informed of the software used during the submission process.
If any doubt or issue arises, the editor‑in‑chief will contact the corresponding author and, if necessary, all authors. If duplication is confirmed, the institutions to which the authors are affiliated or the funding bodies involved in the research will be contacted.

Authorship and conflicts of interest

If authorship is questioned, the corresponding author will be contacted first and, if needed, all authors. If no agreement is reached, the institutions to which the authors are affiliated or the funding bodies involved in the research will be contacted.
If, during the review process, editors or reviewers detect excessive self‑citation by the authors and/or of the journal, the corresponding author (and, if necessary, all authors) will be contacted for clarification to support the decision‑making process.

Research ethics involving human subjects

Regarding research involving human subjects, the editorial process requires authors to provide supporting documentation, such as the opinion of the relevant ethics committee, authorisation from the participants, clinical trial registrations, etc. If any doubt or issue arises, the editor‑in‑chief will contact the corresponding author and, if necessary, all authors to request complete documentation.

Citations and references

If any doubt arises concerning citations and references, the journal will verify them or request a copy of the cited document. If any doubt or issue arises, the editor‑in‑chief will contact the corresponding author and, if necessary, all authors.

Data and image fabrication or falsification

Fabrication or falsification of data and images constitute serious misconduct. The review process is a means of identifying such behaviour. If any doubt arises, authors will be asked for supporting data on methodology and results. If misconduct is confirmed, the institutions to which the authors are affiliated or the funding bodies involved in the research will be notified.

Impartiality and confidentiality in evaluation

Editors and reviewers must uphold impartiality, integrity, and confidentiality in their evaluations, prioritising constructive criticism and respecting the agreed deadlines. If any doubt or issue arises, the editor‑in‑chief will contact the handling editor and/or the reviewers.

General procedure for handling suspected misconduct

The journal will inform authors in the submission instructions how to report suspicions of misconduct.
In all cases of doubts or issues described above, the journal will follow the COPE flowcharts for identifying and handling misconduct. Should the journal’s decision be contested, a committee composed of editorial board members and external experts will be formed.