"REVICC" as a publication that seeks maximum international excellence, is inspired by the ethical code of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), aimed at both editors, reviewers and authors.

Author commitments

Originality and fidelity of the data: The authors of originals sent to "Retos" attest that the work is original and unpublished, that it does not contain parts of other authors or other fragments of works already published by the authors. They also confirm the veracity of the data, that is, that the empirical data have not been altered to verify hypotheses.

 

Multiple and/or repetitive publications: The author should not publish articles in which the same results are repeated in more than one scientific journal or any other publication of a non-academic nature. The simultaneous proposal of the same contribution to multiple scientific journals is considered an ethically incorrect and reprehensible practice.
Attributions, citations and references: The author must always provide the correct indication of the sources and contributions mentioned in the article.
Authorship: The authors guarantee the inclusion of those people who have made a significant scientific and intellectual contribution in the conceptualization and planning of the work as well as in the interpretation of the results and in the writing of the same. At the same time, the order of appearance of the authors has been ranked according to their level of responsibility and involvement.
Access and Retention: If deemed appropriate by members of the Editorial Board, authors of articles must also make available the sources or data on which the research is based, which may be retained for a reasonable period of time after publication and possibly become accessible.
Conflict of interest and disclosure: All authors are required to explicitly declare that there are no conflicts of interest that may have influenced the results obtained or the interpretations proposed. Authors must also indicate any funding from agencies and/or projects from which the research article arises.
Errors in published articles: When an author identifies a significant error or inaccuracy in his or her article, he or she must immediately inform the editors of the journal and provide them with all the information necessary to list the relevant corrections at the bottom of the article itself (always in side note, so as not to alter the publication).
Responsibility: Responsibility for the content of the articles published in “Retos” is the exclusive responsibility of the authors. The authors also undertake that a review of the most current and relevant scientific literature on the topic analyzed has been carried out, taking into account the different currents of knowledge in a plural way.

Reviewer Commitments

Contribution to editorial decision: Peer review is a procedure that helps editors to make decisions on proposed articles and also allows the author to improve the quality of articles submitted for publication. Reviewers assume the commitment to carry out a critical, honest, constructive and unbiased review of both the scientific quality and the literary quality of the writing in the field of their knowledge and skills.
Respect for review times:  A reviewer who does not feel competent in the topic to be reviewed or who cannot complete the evaluation within the scheduled time must immediately notify the editors. The reviewers undertake to evaluate the works in the shortest possible time to respect the delivery deadlines, given that in "Challenges" the custody limits of pending manuscripts are limited and inflexible out of respect for the authors and their works.
Confidentiality: Each assigned manuscript must be considered confidential. Therefore, these texts should not be discussed with others without the express consent of the editors.

Objectivity: Peer review should be conducted objectively. Reviewers are required to give sufficient reasons for each of their assessments, always using the review template. The reviewers will deliver a complete critical report with appropriate references according to the “Challenges” review protocol and public regulations for reviewers; especially if the work is proposed to be rejected. They are required to alert editors if substantial parts of the work have already been published or are under review for another publication.
Text display: Reviewers undertake to accurately indicate bibliographic references of fundamental works possibly forgotten by the author. The reviewer should also inform the editors of any similarities or overlaps of the manuscript with other published works.
Anonymity:  To ensure that the review process is as objective as possible.