Codes of ethics and basic practices

The journal adheres to international standards and codes of ethics:

- Committee on Publication Ethics (Code of Conduct and Best Practices Guidelines for Journals Editors, COPE, https://publicationethics.org/)

- International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICJME, https://www.icmje.org/).

- In research involving human subjects, adhere to the Declaration of Helsinki (https://www.wma.net/es/policies-post/declaracion-de-helsinki-de-la-amm-principios-eticos-para-las-investigaciones-medicas-en-seres-humanos/).  The journal has opened the following questions about basic practices by sending an email to retosfeadef@gmail.com, the following questions on basic practices, which will be received by the editor of the journal and will act accordingly, making it clear that all parties will always be heard and a decision will never be made without being considered or unilaterally, it will always be done in good faith and after reasonable investigation:

Allegations of misconduct

Misconduct observed before, during and after the publication of an article may be reported. The editor of the journal will open a file, hear the parties and make a reasoned decision on the complaint, which may lead to a lifelong ban on those involved in the complaint, if the complaint is proven, and all published articles by those involved may be retracted. The person or institution that makes the complaint is guaranteed total anonymity. If the complaint is against the editor, he will appoint an investigating judge from a university ethics committee completely independent of the journal. The decision of this file will be communicated to those involved and action will be taken accordingly.

Authorship and contribution

Collaborators/authors may not be added once the submission has been made, except for fully justified and argued exceptions. The contribution of each of the authors must be indicated in the letter sent to the editor when submitting the article. In the event of a conflict, the procedure described above will be similar to that described above and the same sanctions will be applied.

Complaints and appeals

The journal has the possibility of making complaints and/or appeals to the different decisions taken in the publication process regarding the journal, its staff, the Editorial Team and the Editor. These complaints will be resolved after opening a file, if necessary, external personnel from an ethics committee of a University totally independent of the journal will be used. The decision of this file will be communicated to those involved and action will be taken in accordance with the opinion.

Conflicts of interest / Competing interests

All persons involved in the journal, authors, reviewers, editors, committee members, must disclose conflicts of interest at all times and refrain from being involved in any conflict of interest that concerns them and communicate it immediately, whether they are identified before or after publication.

Ethical oversight

Ethical oversight should be included in the policies on consent for publication and other aspects related to publication on vulnerable populations, ethical conduct in animal research, ethical conduct in research with human subjects, handling of confidential data and ethical business and marketing practices, as collected by the different international bodies involved.

Intellectual property

The policies on intellectual property, including copyright and publication licenses, are clearly described and must be previously accepted by the authors when submitting the article. Specifically this:

The authors who publish in this journal agree with the following terms:

The authors retain the copyright and grant the journal the right to be the first publication of their work, which will be simultaneously subject to the Creative Commons recognition license that allows third parties to share the work as long as its author and its first publication in this journal are indicated.
Authors may separately enter into additional arrangements for non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., to place it in an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
Authors are permitted and encouraged to disseminate their work electronically (e.g., to institutional repositories or their own website) prior to and during the submission process, as it may lead to productive exchanges as well as earlier and wider citation of published work (see The Effect of Open Access).

This journal follows the BOAI "open access policy" (1), supporting the rights of users to "read, download, copy, distribute, print, search or link to the full texts of articles."
(1) http://legacy.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/boaifaq.htm#openaccess

The authors are aware of the publication fee for a normal review, which can be found here: https://recyt.fecyt.es/index.php/retos/Cuota
Therefore, they agree to pay it if the article is accepted at the time of submission.

There is a special section for plagiarism, as well as it is reflected in the "Editorial Policy Settings" found at: https://recyt.fecyt.es/index.php/retos/Ajustes

Double-blind review processes

All peer review processes are described in the “About the journal” tab https://recyt.fecyt.es/index.php/retos/about The adoption of the review model is specified. When conflicts of interest arise in reviews, appeals and disputes that may arise in peer review, the journal editor will open a file, hear the parties and, if necessary, seek support to resolve it. The decision will be communicated to the parties involved.

Post-publication discussions and corrections

The journal allows for post-publication debate through letters to the editor.

The journal has a specific tab to indicate the policy that outlines the mechanisms for correcting, revising or retracting articles after publication. This tab is called “Retraction of articles”. In addition to explaining the process, it will also publish the articles retracted so far, as well as the reasons. It will also include those in which bad practices have been noted during the review process, indicating what these are.