Quality guidelines
1. Editorial policies
2. Conflicts of interest
3. Code of ethics and editorial practices
4. Modifications to published articles
1. EDITORIAL POLICY
The RPOD seeks to maximize the dissemination and scientific impact of research projects related to military and strategic studies from an interdisciplinary approach in social sciences. To this end, it uses clear and objective procedures for the selection, evaluation, publication, and distribution of the contents.
Similarly, the RPOD seeks to increase national, regional, and international visibility continuously through the use of impact calculation metrics, its inclusion in various indexing bases, and the use of information and communication technologies.
2. CONFLICT OF INTERESTS
The RPOD requires that all participants in the publication process declare any possible conflicts of interest in the preparation or publication of a manuscript. Some examples of potential conflicts of interest directly or indirectly related to the research include (but are not limited to) the following:
• Fees for participation in scientific events.
• Academic support to attend scientific events or educational programs.
• Employment or consulting contracts.
• Board or advisory board positions.
• Intellectual property rights over elements, patents, etc., used during or for the development of the research.
• Personal financial interests or of close relatives in the research.
3. CODE OF ETHICS AND EDITORIAL PRACTICES
a) Responsibilities of the Editors
1) Contents published. The Editors are responsible for the final decision on the contents published in the RPOD. This decision is made objectively, based on the concepts of peer reviewers, without considering the profession, race, gender, citizenship, political or sexual orientation, religious beliefs, or language of the authors.
2) Confidentiality. The Editors, the members of the Editorial and Scientific Boards, and the editorial team agree to disclose information concerning the articles submitted to the RPOD exclusively to the author.
3) Communication. All communications with the authors are done only by the Editors, through institutional emails and the OJS platform of the RPOD.
4) Disclosure of information and conflict of interests. The Editors, members of the Editorial and Scientific Boards, and the editorial team agree not to use the content of the articles sent to the RPOD for self-benefit unless the author has provided explicit written consent. They will inform the Editors of any possible conflicts of interest arising from relationships with any of the authors or institutions associated with the articles.
5) Questions, complaints, or claims. The Editors are responsible for resolving the questions, complaints, or claims received concerning the contents of the RPOD or its editorial and publication processes. Before making a final decision, the Editors may consult the members of the Editorial and Scientific Boards.
b) Responsibilities of the peer reviewers
1) Contribute to editorial decisions. The peer reviewers shall provide the Editors and the members of the Editorial and Scientific Boards recommendations, based on their criteria and professional experience, to make objective decisions concerning the articles submitted to the RPOD. They will also provide the authors with constructive suggestions to improve the quality of their articles.
2) Diligence. Peer reviewers must diligently process the articles assigned for review, notifying the Editors properly when they do not consider themselves qualified to perform the task or when they feel they cannot complete it within the allotted time.
3) Confidentiality. Peer reviewers will not disclose information concerning the articles submitted to the RPOD.
4) Objectivity. Peer reviewers will objectively review the assigned articles and express their opinions with supporting arguments.
5) Bibliographical references. The evaluating peers will notify the Editors if they find that the contents of their assigned articles have not been duly or correctly referenced.
6) Privacy and conflicts of interest. The peer reviewers agree to refrain from using the contents of the articles submitted to RPOD for their self-benefit without the express written consent of the author. They will inform the Editors about any possible conflicts of interest, resulting from a connection with any of the institutions associated with the articles.
c) Responsibilities of the authors
1) Authorship. Unless otherwise noted, the person submitting the manuscript to the RPOD through the OJS platform will be considered the principal author. For all purposes, this person will act on behalf of the other authors. The RPOD requires that authors have a minimum academic training at the level of a Master's degree and experience in their professional field.
The principal author will ensure that only those having made a significant contribution to the design, execution, and interpretation of the research developed are co-authors of the article. He or she will be responsible for verifying that all of the authors approve the changes requested by the peer reviewers, as well as corrections and layout proofs, should the article be accepted for publication.
2) Copyright and license to publish. The authors publishing their articles in the RPOD preserve the moral rights of the work. For the publication of the article, the authors agree to transfer their economic rights to the ESDEG University Press/RPOD under a Creative Commons license: Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International.
Therefore, the works can be reproduced and disseminated in the final version published online by the RPOD provided that the author(s) is(are) recognized and acknowledged. The work is not for commercial use. Modification of the original work or distribution of modified copies is not allowed.
This license also allows authors to archive their article in the final version published online in institutional, thematic repositories, or personal web pages, provided it is done under the conditions above. To this end, the principal author will ensure that all authors sign the declaration of originality, authorship, and assignment of rights form as the final stage for the publication of the article.
3) Access to data. The authors must provide all the data used for the preparation of their article to verify the validity of their results. For a minimum of five years from the publication of the article, the author(s) must guarantee access to this information to other professionals, through a data repository or other direct means of contact. If there is any limitation due to confidentiality effects, the Editors must be notified at the time of submitting the proposed article to the RPOD.
4) Originality. The authors will only submit original, unpublished articles that have not been published previously and that have not been postulated to other magazines or editorial bodies. The authors will guarantee the correct citation and reference of all of the sources used in the writing of their article.
5) Code of conduct and editorial practices. The authors must certify that they have complied with the RPOD code of conduct and editorial practices to demonstrate the objectivity and transparency of their research. Likewise, they will follow the principles of professional ethics, identifying their sources of funding and possible conflicts of interest. Information about informed consent should be included for research involving humans, as well as information on the welfare of animals if they were used during the research.
6) Errors in contents. The authors will immediately notify the Editors of any significant error or inaccuracy in their published article, and provide all the necessary support for its correction, following the RPOD policy of corrections to published articles.
The RPOD subscribes to the COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) code of ethics. Likewise, it follows Elsevier's research and publication ethics program.
The RPOD uses the criteria of the COPE international standard for authors, as well as its flow diagrams to resolve cases of suspected improper practices. Additionally, the RPOD is a signatory of the San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA) and embraces its principles, recommendations, and best practices.
4. MODIFICATIONS TO PUBLISHED ARTICLES
The RPOD ensures that all published content meets the highest quality standards; for this reason, the authors are contacted at least twice by the Editors to verify proof of style correction and layout of the articles. However, the amendments that the Journal can make to the published contents are divided into: a) errata, b) corrections, c) retractions, and d) removal.
a) Errata
Sometimes inadvertent typographical errors occur in production; in this regard, the RPOD agrees to make corrections to the printed content through an errata in the following number, after the error has been detected. Corrections to online content will be made through an addendum to the published article.
The errors that the RPOD accepts to correct, after the printed or online publication of the contents, are the following:
• Spelling errors in the names of the authors, institutional affiliation, email, or ORCID code.
• Spelling errors in the title, abstract, keywords, content, and annexes of the article.
• Poor quality of the tables or figures, or incorrect numbering of these.
The errors that the RPOD does NOT accept to correct after the printed or online publication of the contents are the following:
• Changes in the authors (removal or inclusion of authors), institutional affiliations, acknowledgments, citations, and references.
• Changes to the title, abstract, keywords, content, and annexes of the article.
• Changes of tables or figures.
b) Corrections
Corrections are made when the authors detect errors after the publication of the article that compromise the validity of the scientific content. Corrections are judged on their relevance to readers and on the negative impact on the integrity of the article as a result of subsequent information unknown to the authors at the time of publication.
c) Retractions
The RPOD follows the COPE retraction guidelines and publishes retractions in the following cases:
• There is clear evidence that the findings are unreliable, due to misconduct (e.g. data fabrication) or honest error on the part of the author.
• Findings have been previously published elsewhere (e.g. cases of redundant publication).
• The findings or reports of the findings have been plagiarized.
• The research has not been conducted in accordance with relevant ethical procedures.
In the event of a retraction, the article will be digitally watermarked with the word "Retracted".
d) Removal
The RPOD has a policy of not altering or eliminating the published scientific record, in the interest that the articles should remain unchanged as far as possible. However, an article may be deleted when there is a legal decision that determines that:
• The privacy of a research subject has been inappropriately violated.
• The article contains errors that, if followed, would result in a risk to the general public.
• The article makes defamatory comments about others or their work.
