At AG Editor, the integrity of the academic content and the publication process is fundamental, which is why we adhere to the standards and guidelines proposed by The Committee on Publication Ethics - COPE (See link: https://publicationethics.org/). This document describes the principles of good practice that we apply to our publications.
The publisher maintains high standards of research integrity. We expect publications to adhere to the following principles:
If anyone believes that research published by the publisher has not been conducted in accordance with these principles, they should communicate their concerns to the appropriate editor by emailing editorial@ageditor.org. Concerns will be addressed in accordance with COPE guidelines (See link: https://publicationethics.org/guidance).
In AG Editor we are independent and prevent to be compromised with third parties for any competing interest.
We do not discriminate based on personal characteristics or identity. We promote diversity and inclusion at all stages of our publication process.
Peer review is fundamental to maintaining the standards of our publications. We provide appropriate systems, training and support to facilitate rigorous, fair and effective peer review. We protect the confidentiality in the double-blind peer review process.
We recognize that different disciplines have varying rules about who is included as an author. Where no other guidelines are specified, we recommend applying the following principles:
The corresponding author has specific responsibilities, such as proofreading manuscripts, handling revisions and resubmissions, and responding to post-publication queries.
Article affiliations should represent the institutions where the research was conducted, supported or approved.
At the publisher, we do not tolerate plagiarism. Plagiarism is defined as the use of ideas, words, data or other material produced by others without acknowledgement. Submissions containing suspected plagiarism will be rejected in the first editorial review. If plagiarism is discovered after publication, we will follow our guidelines for Retractions, Corrections, and Expressions of Concern described in COPE (See link: https://doi.org/10.24318/cope.2019.1.4).
We seek to ensure that our publications are free from undue influence. Authors, employees, editors, and reviewers must declare any potential conflict of interest that could interfere with the objectivity or integrity of a publication.
If there is no conflict of interest, authors should declare in the corresponding section: "Conflicts of interest: none".
In the case of conflicts of interest, the authors of the articles should declare it in the corresponding section (Conflicts of interest) and attach the declaration of Conflicts of Interest according to the model proposed by the ICMJE (See link: https://www.icmje.org/downloads/coi_disclosure.docx). The information in the declaration must coincide with that of the manuscript submitted.
Editors will consider retractions, corrections or expressions of concern in line with the COPE Retraction Guidelines (See link: https://doi.org/10.24318/cope.2019.1.4). If an error is discovered, a corrigendum or erratum will be issued as appropriate. Retractions are reserved for articles containing serious errors or substantial plagiarism.
We expect authors to avoid modifying images in a way that leads to falsification or fabrication of their results. We recognize that there may be legitimate reasons for modifying images, but these should not distort the results. If identified, the policies proposed by COPE (See link: https://doi.org/10.24318/cope.2019.2.21) will be followed.
If research fraud or misconduct is discovered, we will work with the relevant publishers and other appropriate institutions to investigate. Any publication found to contain fraudulent findings will be retracted following COPE guidelines for retraction (See link: https://doi.org/10.24318/cope.2019.1.4).
Our publications are distributed in different cultural, environmental and economic contexts. We can issue different versions of some articles to suit these contexts without compromising the quality or accuracy of the materials.
We strive to follow the COPE Principles of Transparency and Best Practices in Scholarly Publishing and encourage our authors to uphold these same principles (See link: https://doi.org/10.24318/cope.2019.1.12).
We support transparency and openness around data, codes, and other materials associated with research. We expect authors to maintain accurate records of supporting evidence necessary to enable others to understand, verify and replicate new findings.
Social media and email communication should maintain the integrity of the content and the academic record. Promotion and marketing strategies must maintain the integrity of the content and must not influence editorial decisions. We use ethical communication channels to promote our publications and ensure that academic content is accessible and respected.
The editors and publisher will take reasonable steps to identify and prevent the publication of papers where research misconduct, including plagiarism, citation manipulation, and falsification/fabrication of data, has occurred. In no case will an editor or publisher encourage such misconduct, or knowingly allow it to occur. In the event that any allegation of research misconduct related to a published article becomes known, the COPE guidelines (or equivalent) for dealing with the allegations will be followed (See link: https://doi.org/10.24318/cope.2019.1.12).
At AG Editor, the integrity and quality of our academic publications are paramount. Our publication ethics policy sets out the principles and standards we follow to ensure that our publication processes are fair, transparent and ethical.
Editor Duties
• The editor of all journals of AG Editor are responsible for deciding which articles should be published. The validation and peer review suggestion should always be a priority to take these decisions. The editor's decisions should be based on the quality of the manuscript and its relevance, without undue outside influence.
• The editor should guarantee that the peer review process is done taking as principal elements: fairness, impartiality, and timeliness. Research articles should be assigned to be reviewed by at least two external reviewers; in case the opinions are very different the editor should seek at least another external reviewer. The reviewers selected should have appropriate expertise in the relevant field and should be free of conflicts of interest.
• The editor should evaluate manuscripts for their content without considering race, sexual orientation, gender, religious beliefs, ethnicity, citizenship, or political philosophy. In addition, the editor should encourage transparency and full, honest reporting in the publisher's editorial policies.
• All materials received by the publisher must be treated confidentially, as well as all communications with authors and reviewers, unless there is an agreement or express consent between the parties to share information.
• The editor should not use generative or AI-assisted AI technologies to assist in the evaluation or decision-making process of a manuscript, as the critical thinking and original evaluation necessary for this work is beyond the scope of this technology. Editors are responsible for and must maintain the confidentiality and integrity of the editorial process.
• Any current or potential conflicts of interest must be clearly declared. Editors cannot participate in decisions regarding documents they write or involve any family members or close colleagues.
Reviewers Duties
• Peer review will always improve the content of articles and should be used as a means of improvement for authors and as a primary tool for acceptance decisions of editors. Reviewers should treat authors with respect and professionalism, including good review etiquette.
• Any document received for review is confidential and cannot be shared. Reviewers cannot share information with third parties or with the authors themselves (Therefore, the editor will ensure that the review is double-blind). The use of the reviewed material without the express consent of the author for own studies is prohibited.
• The reviewer must be alert to potential ethical issues and must notify to the editor if any problems or plagiarism are detected in the reviewed document.
• Reviews should be objective, avoid personal criticism, and address the normal biases of human subjectivity. For this reason, it is important to declare any conflicts of interest and reject the review if necessary.
Authors Duties
• Authors must ensure that the information presented is as accurate as possible. Inaccurate information or errors/fraud are not acceptable.
• Authors must keep their data properly protected in case it is necessary to place them as open data or if they are required for additional information in the review. The publisher could have open data requirements or may request that the data be publicly available for a period of time.
• Authors must ensure that they have written the original work and that any content not their own has been properly cited or quoted. No form of plagiarism is acceptable.
• Authors may not submit the same work to two journals simultaneously; if a previously published work is used as a basis for a new proposal, it must be appropriately cited.
• The main authorship corresponds to the author who has made primary substantial contributions (conception, design, execution, or interpretation) to the submitted work; all those authors who have presented additional contributions will be listed as co-authors. The corresponding author is responsible for communicating with the other authors for reviews and approval of the final version of the document.
• Generative and AI-assisted AI technologies is only accepted to improve the readability and language of the article always with human control and supervision, this must be declared in the Methods section.
• Modifications to images are only accepted to improve their appearance, provided they do not remove original information and cannot be manipulated or changed for document purposes.
• Authors should align to the best industry standards in the registration and submission of clinical trials, such as the CONSORT guidelines (See link: https://www.equator-network.org/reporting-guidelines/consort/). Authors should provide full details of clinical trials, including methods and results, to ensure reproducibility and transparency.
• All authors must declare any conflict of interest that may represent a bias in the preparation of their work, this includes employment, consultancies, stock ownership, honoraria, paid testimonials, registered applications/patents, and grants or other sources of funding. financial support for research should also be disclosed.
• If after publication the author discovers any error that must be corrected, he must notify promptly the editor and publisher. Likewise, if the editor needs any detail to be corrected, the author must cooperate in the process to guarantee the quality of the publication.
The peer review of the articles received is a crucial task for the selection of articles that meet the required standards of quality and impact in the scientific and professional community targeted by this publication.
This essential task, in a rigorous peer review process, falls on external reviewers, recognized experts in their field, unrelated to each other and unaware of the authorship of the work to be evaluated, through a double-blind peer review system.
The external reviewer's task is to collaborate with the Editorial Committee in verifying the originality and quality of the manuscript, its relevance in the areas of interest of the journal/proceedings, and compliance with the necessary formal requirements for its publication. For this, the reviewer's task will focus on the rigorous analysis of the content and form of the manuscript, with a critical and constructive attitude.
The reviewers of AG Editor make up a constantly expanding international list of specialists with a doctoral degree or persons of recognized prestige in the fields of research, giving priority to authors who have published in journals indexed in Web of Science and Scopus.
The reviewers make up a constantly expanding international list of specialists with a doctoral degree or persons of recognized prestige in the fields of research, giving priority to authors who have published in journals indexed in Web of Science and Scopus.
The documents submitted for evaluation are confidential information, so reviewers must refrain from divulging them in any way, or using the information contained in the text for their benefit or that of third parties. If it is necessary to contrast data or advice from specialists on the subject, the authors will be informed
1. The article will be received by the journal/proceedings, which will send you a receipt by email with a unique reference number.
2. The Editor-in-Chief or assigned Editor initially considers newly submitted articles.
3. Within 72 hours, you will receive an email if the manuscript is rejected at this stage. Manuscripts could be rejected at this stage if they do not fit the scope of the journal/proceedings, if they are incomplete, if the findings are not sufficiently described, or if the content is plagiarized.
4. The remaining articles are sent for a double-blind peer review. You will receive an initial decision on the manuscript in an average of 30-45 days.
5. If a revision is required, all comments from the editor and reviewers will be sent to the author along with the original version of the manuscript. You should send the revised version along with your response to the editorial office within 15 days. The final acceptance of the article is in the hands of the journal/proceedings editor after receiving the referees suggestions.
6. If accepted, your article will be published online approximately 15 days after acceptance. All accepted articles will be published online and will be citable by the digital object identifier (DOI). The editorial team will take care of sending the published articles to the indexed databases or registering them as necessary.
The interaction between the evaluators and the editorial team is carried out through the journal/proceeding's web portal, in order to maintain a digital record of all the events that occurred during the process (traceability).
Once the reviewers receive the editorial invitation in their email, they will have a maximum period of 7 days to accept or decline the review proposal. This proposal includes the title and abstract of the text, as well as the schedule established for the review. Only in case the proposal is accepted, the link to the full text of the work to be evaluated will be enabled, along with the corresponding review form.
The reviewers should issue their report and recommendations within a period of 4 weeks (28 days) from the date of acceptance. As an alternative to sending the report, the reviewers can add their own document with the notes or comments they deem pertinent. The recommendation that the reviewer finally decides should be in accordance with the observations he has written in his qualitative evaluation and/or, if applicable, with the numerical score awarded.
In case of a significant discrepancy between the recommendations of the two reviewers, a third opinion (third reviewer) will be requested.
If, based on the recommendations of both reviewers, the editorial decision were to subject the article to a second round of peer review, this would be carried out by the same people who conducted the first evaluation.
The final acceptance of the article is in the hands of the journal/proceedings editor after receiving the referees suggestions. In case of a significant discrepancy between the recommendations of the two reviewers, a third opinion (third reviewer) will be requested.
At AG Editor, we firmly believe in the free circulation of scientific knowledge. Our Open Access Policy ensures that all content published across our journals, books, and conference proceedings is freely accessible to anyone, anywhere in the world.
This policy reflects our commitment to democratizing knowledge, promoting wider visibility, and enhancing the impact of research, thereby contributing to scientific progress and societal development.
Open Access (OA) means that anyone can:
Authors publish under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) license that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgment of authorship of the work and initial publication in this journal. Unless otherwise noted, associated published material is distributed under the same license.
You are free to:
Share copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format
Adapt-remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially. This license is acceptable for Free Cultural Works.
The licensor cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the license terms. Under the following terms:
Attribution - You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
No additional restrictions- You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.
Authors, who retain their rights after publication, are permitted and encouraged to disseminate their work electronically, as it may lead to productive exchanges as well as earlier and greater citation of published work.
The journal encourages authors to deposit their articles in repositories such as Sherpa/Romeo, Dulcinea, Diadorim or institutional repositories.
To ensure the long-term preservation and accessibility of our published content, AG Editor implements a robust e-journal preservation policy.
All articles published by AG Editor are preserved through partnerships with CLOCKSS (Controlled Lots of Copies Keep Stuff Safe) and LOCKSS (Lots of Copies Keep Stuff Safe). These trusted digital preservation systems guarantee that all publications remain secure and accessible for future generations of researchers and students, regardless of technological changes or unforeseen circumstances.
At AG Editor, we promote a transparent and ethical publishing model, aligned with international best practices such as those recommended by COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics). Our mission is to act as a bridge between South American science and the global research community, ensuring that the knowledge produced in our region gains the visibility and recognition it deserves.
Some of our editorial products may involve Article Processing Charges (APCs) to cover peer review, editing, formatting, and dissemination costs.
However, AG Editor is committed to offering flexible and accessible models, especially supporting researchers from low- and middle-income countries through fee waivers or reductions where applicable.
The Editorial Team of AG Editor guarantees that all academic articles published are original, unpublished, and have not been previously published in any other format (in whole or in part), and does not participate in any evaluation process or decision-making of another journal or any other type of publication.
To enforce these policies, the Journal uses the Crossref similarity checker (iThenticate), Turnitin, and Plag.es to evaluate the similarity of articles; complementary, other tools such as DupliCheker, Plagium, Copyscape, etc., may also be used when deemed appropriate.
Plagiarism control will be carried out before peer review begins. When the similarity report is higher than 20%, the authors will be informed by e-mail where the complete similarity report and the expert's reflection will be included. All this, with the purpose that they offer the comments they consider pertinent so that the journal can determine if it is a behavior linked to plagiarism or not, being in the first case the work rejected for evaluation.
The editors may offer authors alternative online programs so that they can analyze their papers before submission.
AG Editor acknowledges the increasing impact of artificial intelligence (AI) technologies, including large language models (LLMs) and generative tools, on research and publishing. This policy is based on recommendations from ICMJE, WAME, COPE, and follows the guidelines of major international publishers such as Elsevier, Nature, IEEE, and PLOS. Our aim is to promote ethical, transparent, and responsible use of AI at all stages of the editorial process.
The publisher does not prohibit the use of large language models (LLMs), such as Chat GPT, and aligns with the recommendations proposed by WAME on this issue (WAME Recommendations on ChatGPT and Chatbots in Relation to Scholarly Publications). It should be noted that LLMs do not meet the authorship criteria proposed by the ICMJE, and if any LLM tool is used, it should be declared in the methods section. Finally, the use of LLMs does not exempt the author from responsibility for the accuracy of the content.
This publisher explicitly aligns with Elsevier’s guidance on the ethical, transparent, and responsible use of AI technologies in scientific publishing.
These guidelines can be reviewed here: https://www.elsevier.com/about/policies-and-standards/generative-ai-policies-for-journals.
In case of disputes or uncertainty regarding AI use, this editorial office will apply the standards established by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and the World Association of Medical Editors (WAME).