Code of Ethics

1. Core Principles and Academic Integrity

At Verbum et Lingua: Didáctica, Lengua y Cultura, we are committed to upholding the highest ethical standards in academic publishing.

• Adherence to COPE: Our code of ethics governs the conduct of the entire editorial team, authors, and reviewers, strictly based on the principles and Code of Conduct of the Committee on Publication Ethics (available at publicationethics.org). We categorically reject any dishonest practices and apply COPE guidelines to sanction misconduct according to its severity.

• Commitment to DORA: In alignment with the San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA), we evaluate manuscripts based on their intrinsic scientific merit. We promote a fair and transparent evaluation that prioritizes quality, rigor, and the real-world impact of science, rather than journal-based metrics alone.

 

2. Open Access and Copyright

• Diamond Open Access: All our content is freely and immediately available to the global public upon publication. We do not charge authors any fees (Zero APCs) for submission, peer review, or publication.

• Licensing: Our publications are governed by the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0). This allows users to access, download, share, and build upon the work, provided proper credit is given, it is not used for commercial purposes, and the resulting material is distributed under the same license.

• Copyright and Retention of Rights: Authors retain their moral and proprietary rights without restriction. By submitting their article, they grant the journal and the University of Guadalajara the right of first publication. Authors are entirely free to enter into separate, independent distribution arrangements (e.g., institutional self-archiving), provided that Verbum et Lingua is clearly acknowledged as the original place of publication along with a link to its DOI.

 

3. Dispute Resolution

• Misconduct: Substantiated allegations will be managed following COPE flowcharts. The editor will contact the accused author while protecting the anonymity of the whistleblower. If the response is unsatisfactory, the Editorial Board will initiate an investigation that may result in the retraction of the article.

• Evaluation Complaints: Grievances regarding the evaluation process will be addressed if procedural errors are identified, providing a response within a reasonable timeframe while protecting the identity of the reviewers.

• Corrections: Any error or ethical breach detected post-publication must be reported immediately to the Editorial Committee, which will act according to the severity of the case to preserve the integrity of the scientific record. A Correction (corrigendum) will be published if the error is inadvertent and does not alter the conclusions of the research. Conversely, a formal Retraction will be issued if methodological errors or academic misconduct (such as plagiarism or data manipulation) completely invalidate the findings of the study. Finally, an Expression of Concernwill be issued as a precautionary measure when there are well-founded suspicions of irregularities, but the investigation to clarify the facts is still ongoing and a definitive resolution has not yet been reached.

• Conflict of Interest Recusal Clause: When a member of the Editorial Management Team appears as an author or co-author of a manuscript submitted to the journal, they must immediately and completely recuse themselves from any intervention in the editorial process of that work. This includes managing the submission on the OJS platform, selecting referees, monitoring reviews, making decisions regarding acceptance or rejection, and any other coordination or supervisory function related to that specific manuscript. In such cases, responsibility for the editorial process will be transferred to another member of the Editorial Committee who has no conflict of interest, or, in their absence, to a member designated by the Editorial Board. The recused individual will not have access to the reviews or deliberations related to their manuscript until a final decision has been issued, and said manuscript must undergo the same double-blind peer review process as any other submission, without distinction or preferential treatment.

 

4. Roles and Responsibilities of the Editorial Team

The responsibilities of each member are aligned with COPE best practices and the Journal's Regulations:

Co-Directors

• Convene the Editorial Committee, issue calls for papers, and propose the content for each issue.

• Coordinate the general editing and publication process, ensuring its transparency.

• Manage resources, distribute the journal, and provide information for indexing purposes.

Editor-in-Chief (Editora Responsable)

• Supervises compliance with objectives, ensuring the highest academic standard.

• Receives submissions via OJS, manages peer reviews, and monitors compliance with recommendations.

• Accepts or rejects articles through an unappealable decision based on presentation criteria, editorial line, and scientific merit.

• Guarantees impartiality, sends unedited evaluations to authors, declares conflicts of interest, and publishes retractions or clarifications when necessary.

Editorial Committee

• Maintains transparency, accountability, and integrity in all committee activities.

• Estates clear policies regarding the size, composition, appointment, and duration of committee mandates.

• Provides guidelines on handling conflicts of interest, complaints, and misconduct.

Scientific Committee

• Promotes the submission to and dissemination of the journal at national and international levels.

• Suggests updates to the editorial policy and advises on defining scientific quality parameters.

• Participates as a reviewer or recommends experts, ensuring the excellence of the process.

Guest Editors

• Coordinate thematic issues, invite authors and reviewers, collaborate in the double-blind review process, and write the introduction/presentation for the issue.

Technical Editor / Secretary

• Applies iThenticate software for similarity and plagiarism detection.

• Coordinates the editorial assessment (desk review), copyediting, technical processing, and production.

• Verifies DOI numbers, updates metadata, generates reading formats (XML, HTML, PDF), and manages the OJS platform.

Reviewers (Referees)

• Evaluate objectively based on originality, contribution, methodology, and relevance.

• Maintain absolute confidentiality, declare conflicts of interest, and do not delegate the review or use content from the manuscript under review.

• Do not upload the manuscript, in whole or in part, into public generative Artificial Intelligence tools (e.g., ChatGPT, Claude) to generate reports, summaries, or evaluations, as this violates copyright and the confidentiality of an unpublished document.

• Do not discuss the manuscript with third parties or involve other researchers in the review without explicit permission from the editor.

• Review in an objective, specific, and constructive manner, offering well-founded feedback to improve the manuscript.

• Do not rewrite the article in their own personal style if the original text is clear and solid.

• Inform the editor of any suspicion of similarity, plagiarism, or undeclared use of AI.

Authors

• Comply with the requirements of originality and novelty, and declare funding sources and conflicts of interest.

• Cite accurately. Self-citations (maximum of three) must be highly relevant and must not be used to recycle ideas.

• Respond in a timely and justified manner to the observations of editors and reviewers within the established deadlines, and sign the Acceptance Letter.