General scope and editorial policy
Análisis Filosófico is published by the Sociedad Argentina de Análisis Filosófico (SADAF), with a six-month frequency (two issues per year, in May and November).
It publishes original articles, discussions, critical studies and reviews in English, Portuguese and Spanish. The Editorial Board of this journal is also interested in publishing articles containing criticisms of other articles that had been previously published in the journal. In all cases, the texts should contribute to the development of philosophical analysis. Conceptual precision, rigour and originality are essential to any text accepted for publication.
All submissions will be double-blind peer reviewed. The final decision wil be taken by the Editorial Board on the basis of the reports sent by selected experts. Reviewed texts are treated confidentially prior to their publication.
The Editorial Board will only consider for publication texts that have not been published and that have not been simulaneaouly submitted to other journals. Once they are accepted for publication, an authorization of this journal will be needed to publish them elsewhere.
Análisis Filosófico will prevent the publication of texts which may involve any kind of research misconduct. In cases of suspected misconduct or disputed authorship, the Editorial Board will be guided by the COPE flowcharts (http://publicationethics.org/resources/flowcharts) and will initiate the pertinent actions.
Análisis Filosófico is willing to publish corrections, clarifications, retractions and apologies when needed. In case of noticing a problem of this kind, the reader is asked to contact firstname.lastname@example.org
Editorial decisions are not affected by the origins of the manuscript, including the nationality, ethnicity, political beliefs, race, or religion of the authors. Decisions to edit and publish are not determined by the policies of governments or other agencies outside of the journal itself.
Copyright, access and archiving
Publication of a text presupposes that the copyright is passed on to the editorial institution of the journal.
All the texts are available to readers at this very site (see CONTENTS).
If the journal is no longer published, the archive will be preserved at the institution site (www.sadaf.org.ar)
Análisis Filosófico maintains a commitment to the policies of Open Access to scientific information, as it considers that both scientific publications as well as research investigations funded by public resources should circulate freely without restrictions.
The Sociedad Argentina de Análisis Filosófico (SADAF), namely, the publisher of Análisis Filosófico, is committed to meeting and upholding standards of good practice in academic publishing at all stages of the publication process of the journal. Below is a summary of our Code of Conduct for editors, peer-reviewers and authors and our Procedures for Dealing with Academic Misconduct, which adhere to the latest publications ethics and malpractice policies.These Good Publishing Practice Guidelines are meant to be periodically revised.
CODE OF CONDUCT
* To act in a balanced, objective and fair way while carrying out their expected duties, without discrimination on grounds of gender, sexual orientation, religious or political beliefs, ethnic or geographical origin of the authors.
* To handle submissions for supplements or special issues in the same way as regular submissions, so that articles are considered and accepted solely on their academic merit and without undue influence.
* To adopt and follow reasonable procedures in the event of complaints of an ethical or conflicting nature. To give authors a reasonable opportunity to respond to any complaints. All complaints should be investigated no matter when the original publication was approved. Documentation associated with any such complaints should be retained.
* To contribute to the decision-making process, and to assist in improving the quality of the published paper by reviewing the manuscript objectively, in a timely manner.
* To maintain the confidentiality of any information supplied by the editor or author. To not retain or copy the manuscript.
* To alert the editor to any published or submitted content that is substantially similar to that under review.
* To be aware of any potential conflicts of interest (financial, institutional, collaborative or other relationships between reviewer and author) and to alert the editor of these, if necessary withdrawing their services for that manuscript.
* To confirm that the manuscript as submitted is not under consideration or accepted for publication elsewhere. Where portions of the content overlap with published or submitted content, to acknowledge and cite those sources. Additionally, to provide the editor with a copy of any submitted manuscript that might contain overlapping or closely related content.
* To confirm that all the work in the submitted manuscript is original and to acknowledge and cite content reproduced from other sources. To obtain permission to reproduce any content from other sources when needed.
* To declare any potential conflicts of interest that could be considered or viewed as exerting an undue influence on his or her duties at any stage during the publication process.
* To notify promptly the journal editor or publisher if a significant error in their publication is identified. To cooperate with the editor and publisher to publish an erratum, addendum, corrigendum notice, or to retract the paper, where this is deemed necessary.
* SADAF through the editorial committee shall ensure that good academic publishing practice is maintained to the standards outlined above.
PROCEDURES FOR DEALING WITH ACADEMIC MISCUNDUCT
Identification of unethical behavior
* Misconduct and unethical behavior may be identified and brought to the attention of the editor and publisher at any time, by anyone.
* Whoever informs the editor or publisher of such conduct should provide sufficient information and evidence in order for an investigation to be initiated. All allegations should be taken seriously and treated in the same way, until a successful decision or conclusion is reached.
* An initial decision should be taken by the editor, who should consult with or seek advice from the publisher, if appropriate.
* Evidence should be gathered, while maintaining confidentiality and avoiding spreading any allegations beyond those who need to know.
* Minor misconduct might be dealt without the need to consult more widely. In any event, the author should be given the opportunity to respond to any allegations.
* Serious misconduct might require that the employers of the accused be notified. The editor, in consultation with the publisher, should make the decision whether or not to involve the employers, either by examining the available evidence themselves or by further consultation with a limited number of experts.
Outcomes (in increasing order of severity; may be applied separately or in conjunction)
* Informing or educating the author or reviewer where there appears to be a misunderstanding or misapplication of acceptable standards.
* A more strongly worded letter to the author or reviewer covering the misconduct and a warning to future behavior.
* Publication of a formal notice detailing the misconduct.
* Publication of an editorial detailing the misconduct.
* A formal letter to the head of the author’s or reviewer’s department or funding agency.
* Formal retraction or withdrawal of a publication from the journal, in conjunction with informing the head of the author or reviewer’s department, Abstracting & Indexing services and the readership of the publication.
* Imposition of a formal embargo on contributions from an individual for a defined period.
* Reporting the case and outcome to a professional organization or higher authority for further investigation and action.