Ethics and good practices

Ethics and good practices

Anales del Instituto de la Patagonia (AIP) establishes its publishing processes based on the guidelines expressed by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), International Standards for Editors, International Standards for Authors (COPE), and the Singapore Declaration on Integrity in Research.

For authors

Authors should follow the following ethical principles and good practices.

  • The papers submitted to the assessment of the journal must be original and unpublished research, developed under high ethical standards, and be responsible for the veracity and accuracy of the information.
  • Author(s) should submit papers according to the AIP instructions for authors (see our website).
  • The authorship of the papers should accurately reflect the degree of contribution of those who effectively participated in the research. It should follow the guidelines published by As a standard of good practice, we suggest that the authors have research suitability, and those who have contributed unsubstantially or tangentially may be mentioned in the acknowledgment section.
  • As a rule of good practice, the authorship and its order cannot be changed after the evaluation phase (see review process on our website).
  • The funding source must be truthfully indicated, which must be declared when the paper is submitted to AIP in the admission phase (see review process on our website).
  • The paper should provide references and information to all sources, methods, and results, so that they can be used or replicated by other researchers.
  • Author(s) must guarantee that their submitted papers have not been previously or simultaneously submitted elsewhere and do not contain parts of other publications without the corresponding references.
  • Likewise, the paper must guarantee that the information and results presented are truthful and have not been manipulated, falsified, invented, or distorted.
  • The author(s) should warn the Editorial Committee (CEC) if they discover errors in any paper submitted, accepted, or published.
  • Author(s) must cooperate in executing the corrections and within the deadlines given by the Editorial Committee. If authors decide to withdraw their paper, they must timely report this through a letter to the Editorial Committee (see review process).
  • Authors agree to respect copyright laws and conventions regarding which resources used in their papers, such as tables, figures, photographs, images, and citations, must be duplicated with permission and with the corresponding acknowledgment.

Agreements and ethical and good practices procedures for members of the scientific Editorial Committee, which is formed by the editor-in-chief and co-editors:

  • The strict confidentiality of all the documents received and the non-use of the information or contents of the papers for personal research by any member of the Editorial Committee or the journal work team without the express permission of the authors is guaranteed.
  • Authors are guaranteed a confidential, transparent, equitable evaluative process free of gender bias or any other kind.
  • We establish the possibility of requesting which authors should not review their work, supported by fundamental and meritorious reasons, and in such cases, the Editorial Committee may consider such request, but it is not forced to agree to the veto.
  • We establish that authors may withdraw their work during the evaluation process. This must be supported by ground and meritorious reasons (see Evaluation Process on our website).
  • Editors guarantee the reviewer´s anonymity.
  • The CES will select appropriate and pertinent reviewers, ensuring the process is accomplished without bias or possible conflicts of interest and within the established deadline.
  • The Editorial Committee will ensure that during the review process, special attention is paid to verify that the papers comply with the publication requirements to which authors adhere.
  • In the event of detection or suspicion of inappropriate behavior, the evaluated papers will be rejected. If this situation is detected after publication, they will be discredited and reported on the journal´s website using an erratum.
  • The procedures to be followed in case of inappropriate behavior (redundant or duplicate publication, plagiarism, untruthful information, conflict of interests, other ethical problems) will be according to the Code of Conduct designed by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).
  • In case of any conflict of interest (personal, academic, commercial, etc.) on the part of any member of the Editorial Committee regarding a paper submitted to the journal, the member must disclose it and abstain from participating in the evaluation process to guarantee objectivity.
  • CEC must stick to the deadline established for the evaluation process (90 days).
  • The instructions for submission of papers to the journal will be made public through the journal's website
  • Paper rejections are not appealable.
  • Any post-publication discrepancy between the Editorial Committee and the paper's authors will be solved using an erratum.

For Reviewers:

  • The reviewers should abstain from reviewing a paper if the following conflict of interest exist: a) having family or conjugal bond with any of the authors; b) having work ties with any authors (line manager or direct subordinate); c) having published in the last five years with any of the authors of the submitted paper; d) having a mentor-student bond.
  • The reviewers will commit to conducting constructive reviews with objective and honest criticisms. Their opinions must be properly supported and expressed with clarity, accuracy, and impartiality.
  • The reviewers must refrain from conducting a review when it exceeds their field of knowledge or specialization, immediately informing the AIP Editorial Committee.
  • The evaluation process will always be subject to strict confidentiality conditions. It cannot be discussed with any other people outside the Editorial Committee without the authorization of the journal´s Chief Editor.
  • The assessors may not use the information they have had access to during the evaluation process.
  • The reviewer must advise the Editorial Committee of any inappropriate behavior detected in the context of the review of a paper, whether in terms of a possible redundant or duplicate publication, plagiarism, untruthful information, conflict of interests, or other ethical problems.
  • Reviewers must comply with the deadline established by the editor to assess the papers. In the event that, at the time of receiving the request the reviewer is unable to meet the deadline, you must immediately inform the AIP Editorial Committee by email.

Finally, any other ethical or procedural aspect not contained in this website is subjected to further insight and action described in the following websites:  International standards for authors and International standards for editors, both available at:

Manual de Conflictos de Intereses del CSIC, ( 2015).

Código de Buenas Prácticas Científicas del CSIC, (Marzo 2011).

We suggest checking, according to each discipline, the international standards regarding the average number of authors per article: