All submissions are sent out for double blind peer review to two reviewers who are specialized in the field that corresponds to the submission. The review process determines whether submissions are accepted for publication as is, with minor or more significant revisions, are subject to revision and resubmission, or are rejected. For all revise and resubmit decisions, revised articles are sent out for a second round of double blind review, either to the original reviewers or to new ones. The editors make publication decisions in accordance with the recommendations of the external reviewers. IHS is committed to editorial independence and to professional criteria free from ideological bias or political influence. The editorial process also emphasizes a broad plurality of scholarly theoretical and methodological approaches. IHS does not provide for an appeal by authors once an article is rejected for publication, but it does at all times provide authors with the full and uncensored blind reviews upon which the editorial team bases its decisions. In the case of multi-authored submissions, correspondence is maintained with either the lead author or with the author designated by the team of multiple authors, although it is the policy of IHS to provide the review reports to any author that requests them.
The IHS does not accept duplicate submissions; plagiarized work, AI generated pieces, or previously published manuscripts. Authors are expected to submit only original work that has not been submitted elsewhere and that is not under review elsewhere. All submissions must make some substantially new contribution to the field, whether theoretical, methodological, or with regard to original data. Plagiarism is defined as “submitting as one’s own work, irrespective of intent to deceive, that which derives in part or in its entirely from the work of others without due acknowledgement.” Plagiarism is a breach of academic integrity and a plagiary is grounds for a rejection of the submission. In general, IHS adheres to the definition of academic misconducts that has been established by Cambridge University Press and is available here: https://www.plagiarism.admin.cam.ac.uk/definition
All submitted manuscripts must include a ‘Conflict of Interest’ section at the end of the manuscript listing all financial and non-financial conflicts of interest. Where authors have no conflicts of interest, the statement should read, “The authors declare no conflicts of interest regarding the publication of this paper”.
This code of ethics is based on the “Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing” established by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE: http://publicationethics.org/). It is addressed to editors, reviewers, and authors alike.
1. Regarding Articles
1.1. Data presented in articles must be real and authentic. All articles must include citations and references to the respective sources.
1.2. Plagiarism and the use of fraudulent data in any form are prohibited. Submitting an article for evaluation to more than one journal is considered an unfair practice. Publishing the same article in more than one journal is considered unethical.
2. Regarding Authors
2.1. Presenting other authors' ideas as one's own is unacceptable.
2.2. Authors must disclose any funding sources that supported the study, as well as any other commitments that could influence the interpretation of the results.
3. Regarding Evaluators and Peer Review
3.1. Evaluators must issue their assessments objectively and without bias.
3.2. Evaluators must promptly report to the editor any conflict of interest detected while reading an article sent to them for review.
3.3. Evaluators must flag any potential instances of plagiarism, whether partial or affecting the entire article. They must also indicate if a theoretical source is used in an article without being cited.
3.4. Peer review is a confidential process. Evaluators must keep all information regarding the articles under review confidential.
4. Regarding the Editor
4.1. It is the editor's responsibility to evaluate articles without regard to the authors' race, gender, sexual orientation, religious beliefs, political beliefs, nationality, ethnic origin, or personal stance.
4.2. The editor must decide which articles are to be sent for peer review and which are suitable for publication following review, while also maintaining the confidentiality of the articles under evaluation—refraining from disclosing any information regarding their content, subject matter, authorship, included data, analyses performed, or final conclusions.
5. Regarding the Editorial Board
5.1. The Editorial Board is responsible for overseeing and safeguarding the journal's editorial ethics, resolving any ethical conflicts promptly and in coordination with the editor, with the aim of maintaining the journal's academic integrity and credibility.
5.2. The Editorial Board rejects plagiarism and fraudulent data in articles in any form.
5.3. The Editorial Board is committed to publishing corrections, clarifications, rectifications, and apologies when necessary.
6. Editorial Policy on the Use of AI
This journal adopts the following guidelines regarding the use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools in the processes of writing, editing, reviewing, and reusing content:
6.1 General Principles
Following recommendations from international bodies such as COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) and academic best practices, the following is established:
6.1.1 AI tools cannot be considered authors of academic or scientific works, as they cannot assume responsibility for the generated content.
6.1.2 AI lacks the capacity to make autonomous decisions regarding conflicts of interest, copyright, or ethical issues.
6.1.3 Respect for intellectual property and the originality of content must always be guaranteed.
6. 2 Use of AI by Authors
6.2.1 Declaration of Use: Authors must explicitly declare the use of any AI tool in the drafting, analysis, or generation of content for their manuscripts. This declaration must be clear and precise.
6.2.2 Responsibility for Originality: The author is solely responsible for the originality of content generated or assisted by AI. Generated material must not infringe upon the rights of third parties or constitute plagiarism of existing content.
6.2.3 Limits on Use: Generative AI may not be used to create or manipulate research data. Authors must thoroughly review and edit any AI-generated text to ensure its accuracy, relevance, and suitability for the academic and scientific context.
6.3 Use of AI in Peer Review
Declaration of AI Use by Reviewers: If a reviewer employs AI tools to evaluate a manuscript, they must declare such use in their report. AI may only serve as a support tool, and the final evaluation must be based on the reviewer's critical judgment and expertise.
6.4 Use of AI by the Editorial Team
The editorial team may use AI tools for administrative and editing tasks, such as formatting, plagiarism detection, or style checking. However, these tools must be used under strict human supervision, ensuring at all times the coherence, quality, and alignment of the content with the journal's standards.
6.5 Ethics and Confidentiality in the Use of AI
6.5.1 AI must not be used for data manipulation, the generation of false information, plagiarism, or any other practice contrary to academic and scientific ethics.
6.5.2 Data used by AI tools must comply with EUG privacy and confidentiality regulations, ensuring that sensitive information is not exposed to security risks.
6.5.3 Users of AI are advised to fully inform themselves about each tool's data usage policies prior to implementation.
7. Policy Review and Updates
This policy will be reviewed periodically to adapt to technological advancements in AI, as well as to best practices within the academic and scientific communities. Any resulting modifications will be published in a timely manner.
8. Consequences of Non-Compliance
Failure to comply with this policy may result in sanctions ranging from the withdrawal of the manuscript to a ban on future submissions to EUG. In serious cases, the sanctions established in the publisher's academic integrity regulations will apply.
