Code of Ethics

Theory Now. Journal of Literature, Critique, and Thought is committed to guaranteeing the ethics and quality of the articles published with reference to the Code of Conduct and Best Practices for Editors of Scientific Journals defined by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and the CSE's White Paper on Promoting Integrity in Scientific Journal Publications (https://publicationethics.org/resources/guidelines). At the same time, it guarantees an adequate response to the needs of readers and authors, ensuring the quality of published texts, and protecting and respecting the content and integrity of articles.

 

1. Editorial Board

The editorial board accepts and agrees to follow the following guidelines for good conduct in being part of Theory Now. Theory Now's editorial board is responsible for the scientific quality of the journal. To this end, it consults the editorial board and the scientific and advisory board and ensures that the articles received are evaluated by experts in the field.

The editorial board follows the instructions made public for the receipt and handling of manuscripts and complies with current legislation regarding copyright and plagiarism. During the evaluation process, the editorial board only evaluates the scientific content of the articles. The editorial board first assesses the articles received to decide on their suitability to the areas of knowledge and scientific standards of the journal, and to detect possible cases of plagiarism and redundant publication, using, when necessary.

The editorial board is ultimately responsible for the decision to publish or reject an article. It is responsible for arbitrating in cases of disagreement between reviewers. Its decision will not be modified except in exceptional circumstances. The date of receipt and acceptance of each article will be made public.

Confidentiality clause: the editorial board may only share information regarding submitted manuscripts with the author, reviewers, potential reviewers and others in charge of the publication process.

 

2. Authors

Authors should submit original articles containing the results of their own research. As a general rule, the author will not submit articles that contain results already published in other works of his/her own, nor will he/she submit the same manuscript to more than one journal at the same time.

Authorship of a manuscript is limited to those persons who have taken part in the process of research and writing of the article. It is the responsibility of the main author to identify other co-authors and collaborators, as well as to ensure that the co-authors have given their approval to the final version of the manuscript.

Authors agree to acknowledge all bibliographic sources used in the research and will acknowledge the bibliographic sources that have made possible the preparation of their work, following the guidelines provided by the journal. It is the author's responsibility to obtain the necessary permissions to partially reproduce material from other publications.

Authors should note any possible conflicts of interest in the submission of their manuscript that may affect the evaluation of their work. The sources of funding for the project that has given rise to the article should also be mentioned.

Errors contained in the manuscripts are the responsibility of the authors, and their correction will be requested by them to the journal and they will cooperate in their correction.

Authors will provide their professional contact information to be used during the process of evaluation and, if necessary, publication of the article.

 

3. Peer Reviewers

Articles submitted to Theory Now, once they have passed the editorial board's assessment of their suitability for the contents of the journal, are submitted to a double-blind peer review system. The peer reviewers assist the editorial board in editorial decisions and collaborate with the author to improve their work, if necessary. Their work is essential for the scientific quality of the journal.

The selected reviewers must state whether they are qualified to review the proposed article and whether they can deliver the evaluation within the proposed deadline.

The reviewers undertake to substantiate their report and to express their criticisms and suggestions in a clear and reasoned manner, making use of secondary bibliography if necessary. Evaluators may identify in their reports relevant publications not included in the articles, to support their evaluation or to suggest their inclusion in the text.

When possible, reviewers identify relevant sources that have not been cited by the authors. If they are aware of any substantial similarity between the manuscript and any other publication, they inform the editor.

The reviewers declare possible cases of conflict of interest due to competitiveness, collaboration or other relationships of connection with the authors or institutions linked to the article submitted to them.

In case of detecting plagiarism or any practice that violates this declaration, reviewers undertake to immediately notify the editorial board through the editor.

Any manuscript received by the reviewer is treated as a confidential document. It is not shown or discussed with anyone unless authorized by the editorial board. Privileged information obtained in the evaluation process is considered confidential and is not used to the advantage of the evaluators or members of the journal.