Ethical guidelines

Ethical Guidelines and Statement of Good Practices

SYbIL is an academic journal that publishes scholarly articles and is firmly committed to complying with ethical standards and best practices. The Editor of SYbIL and its Editorial Board are responsible for establishing and upholding the following standards in the process of selecting and accepting submitted contributions, as well as for assuming the responsibilities arising from the publication process. They are likewise committed to safeguarding the ethical integrity and scientific and academic quality of the journal, and to ensuring that all parties involved accept and adhere to the principles set out below.

 

Authors’ Responsibilities

Authors of submitted manuscripts must comply with the following obligations, as well as with the guidelines for authors available on the SYbIL website and included in each issue.

Authors undertake to submit manuscripts that are not under consideration elsewhere and have not been previously submitted to other publications, and to agree to an anonymous peer-review process. The research must have been conducted in accordance with ethical standards and reported in sufficient detail to allow for academic replication.

All authors must disclose the sources of funding that have supported their research and enabled them to obtain relevant results, as well as any potential influence of such funding on those results. Submitted articles must be entirely original works. Where authors have used the work and/or excerpts of others, these must be properly cited in accordance with the aforementioned guidelines.

Any form of plagiarism constitutes a breach of these good practices and will not be accepted under any circumstances. Plagiarism includes literal or near-literal copying, as well as paraphrasing of the text or research results of other authors without proper acknowledgment. It is not appropriate for an author to submit more than one manuscript reporting the same research, unless it involves the resubmission of a rejected article to a different journal. If authors become aware of a fundamental error or material inaccuracy in their published work, they must promptly notify the journal.

 

Editors’ Ethical Responsibilities

Editors are responsible for ensuring compliance with the aforementioned obligations, for safeguarding the scientific and academic quality of SYbIL, and for overseeing matters relating to intellectual property, copyright, infringements, and plagiarism.

Editors must respect the intellectual independence of authors and consider all manuscripts submitted for publication, evaluating each contribution objectively. They are also responsible for ensuring that manuscripts are subject to an anonymous peer-review process. Final decisions regarding the acceptance or rejection of a manuscript rest with the Editorial Board.

Editors are responsible for selecting reviewers based on their expertise, reputation, and sound judgment, who will assess the scientific quality of submissions. However, manuscripts may be rejected without external review if, in the editors’ opinion, they are not suitable for publication in the journal. Such decisions must be based on the manuscript’s lack of alignment with the journal’s scope and focus, insufficient relevance or timeliness, formal deficiencies, or any other reason related to SYbIL’s remit. Manuscripts will therefore be evaluated solely on the basis of their content, irrespective of commercial interests and without discrimination on grounds of ethnicity, race, ideology, religion, gender, or any other factor relating to the author.

Editors must communicate the results of the evaluation reports to authors without disclosing the identity of the reviewers, while informing them of the criteria applied in the assessment of the manuscript for publication.

Members of the Editorial Board and any other editors must not disclose any information regarding a submitted manuscript to anyone other than those from whom academic or scientific advice is sought. Confidentiality must be maintained at all stages of the review process (from reviewers to authors, and viceversa). Editors must refrain from participating in the evaluation or any editorial process involving manuscripts where a conflict of interest exists due to competitive, collaborative, or other relationships with any of the authors.

Unpublished information, arguments, or interpretations contained in submitted manuscripts must not be used by editors in their own research.

Reviewers’ Responsibilities

Reviewers have the duty to assess objectively the quality and originality of submitted manuscripts, with particular emphasis on maintaining high scientific standards. They assist editors in decision-making and may also help authors improve their manuscripts.

Reviewers must inform the editor of any substantial similarity between the manuscript under review and any other article or manuscript submitted to or published by another journal or publisher.

Reviewers are expected to conduct their evaluations appropriately and to submit their reports within the agreed timeframe, even if approximate. If a reviewer considers that they are not suitably qualified to assess the submitted research or is unable to meet the review deadline, they must promptly inform the editor and withdraw from the review process.

Manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be shown to or discussed with third parties, except in exceptional circumstances where consultation with individuals who can provide scientific or academic advice is necessary. In such cases, the identities of those consulted must be disclosed to the editor.

 

Corrections and Retractions

If any data or information published in SYbIL is found to be false, erroneous, misleading, or fraudulent, the editors must inform the authors of these circumstances and await their response before making an editorial decision. If the response is unsatisfactory or no response is received, the editors may decide to retract the published material with the approval of the Editorial Board.

SYbIL will address any claims or complaints regarding published content through the following address: editor@sybil.es. The editors undertake to investigate such matters and, where appropriate, to proceed with review and retraction if necessary.

When a correction or retraction of published material is required, the editors will be guided by the principles set out in the Guidelines for Retracting Articles of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

Guidelines for Retracting Articles of the Committee on Publication Ethic : https://publicationethics.org/guidance/guideline/retraction-guidelines

 

NOTICE ON THE USE OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE (AI) IN SUBMISSIONS AND PEER REVIEW

Journal SYbIL recognises the potential of artificial intelligence tools to support research and academic writing in the legal and social sciences. Their use may be beneficial when carried out responsibly, transparently, and with appropriate human oversight. However, the ethical, academic, and legal responsibility for any work submitted for evaluation rests exclusively with the authors and reviewers, who must ensure the accuracy, integrity, and reliability of the content.

General Principles

1. Auxiliary Use of Artificial Intelligence. Artificial intelligence tools may be used as supporting instruments in the preparation of manuscripts. Under no circumstances should they replace the academic judgement or the intellectual and ethical responsibility of the authors.

2. Human Responsibility. Authors and reviewers are fully responsible for the content they produce or evaluate. Intellectual and ethical responsibility for the work rests exclusively with those who sign it. Accordingly, artificial intelligence tools may not be listed as authors or co-authors of academic work.

3. Transparency in the Use of AI. Where artificial intelligence tools have been used in the preparation of a manuscript, such use must be clearly and transparently disclosed. Authors and reviewers should indicate the tool used and the type of assistance provided.

4. Integrity and Verification of Content. Authors and reviewers must critically review any content generated with the assistance of artificial intelligence. The final content of the manuscript, including data, arguments, citations, and conclusions, must be validated by those who sign it, who guarantee its accuracy and compliance with standards of academic integrity.

Guidelines for Authors

Permitted uses (examples): linguistic assistance (spelling and grammar correction, stylistic improvement, or translation), drafting abstracts or summaries, and support in structuring the manuscript or improving its clarity. In all cases, authors must verify the accuracy of the content, including citations and references, by checking them against the original sources.

Non-permitted uses (examples): attributing authorship to artificial intelligence; fabricating, falsifying, or “completing” data, results, images, or references; incorporating text or figures from third parties without appropriate citation or permission; concealing the use of artificial intelligence; or using AI tools to generate interpretations, conclusions, or academic arguments without adequate human supervision.

Transparency: any substantial use of artificial intelligence tools must be disclosed in the manuscript, indicating the tool used and its version, the purpose of its use, the sections affected, and the degree of human supervision.

Guidelines for Reviewers

Peer review is founded on the principle of confidentiality. Accordingly, reviewers must not upload, copy, paste, or summarise the manuscript, its appendices, associated data, editorial metadata, or their own review report into external artificial intelligence tools. Nor may they use AI tools to perform the scientific evaluation of the manuscript or to draft, in whole or in part, the review report.

Disclosure of AI Use (Suggested Statement)

Where artificial intelligence tools have been used in the preparation of the manuscript, authors may include a statement such as the following:

“The authors used [name of the AI tool and version] for [specific purpose, e.g., language editing or structuring of the manuscript]. All outputs were reviewed and validated by the authors, who assume full responsibility for the content of the manuscript.”

Compliance

Failure to comply with these guidelines may lead to requests for clarification or correction by the editorial team and, where appropriate, to the non-acceptance or rejection of the manuscript.

Policy Updates

Given the rapid development of artificial intelligence technologies, the journal may periodically review and update this policy in order to incorporate emerging best practices in research integrity and scholarly publishing.