Academic Honesty

AnálisiS is based on the institutional policy of Academic Honesty (Academic Integrity) of the University of Puerto Rico, Río Piedras Campus. This policy attempts to "promote the highest standards of academic and scientific integrity and punish the violation of them." Circular Letter No. 17 of the Chancellor‘s Office (1989-1990) stipulates that: 

The lack of integrity and academic and scientific fraud includes plagiarism, falsification, fabrication, or false attribution of any deceit or deviation, from those behaviors or practices of academic honesty generally accepted in the academic community, which does not occur as a result of errors or honest differences and the involuntary misinterpretation or mishandling of data or information.

1. Plagiarism. The Board of Trustees of the University of Puerto Rico defines plagiarism as "the use of another person‘s ideas, processes, results or words without giving the person the credit that deserves" (2006-2007, p. 3).
2. Copyright Law. In 1993, the University approved an Institutional Policy on Copyright, which inserts the institution in the broad context of federal and state laws and the jurisprudence of copyright law. Please refer to the following document:

 http://graduados.uprrp.edu/images/pdf/Fond_Ext_Brochure_Politica_Institucional_Patentes.pdf

Works submitted to Analysis will be examined for possible plagiarism using electronic plagiarism detection tools. The journal will follow the guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (CORE) to address cases according to the degree of plagiarism identified. To promote the highest ethical standards for publication, COPE offers a set of publication practices and policies that can be found at the following link https://publicationethics.org/core-practices.  AnálisiS uses guidelines to develop its publication policy and to resolve ethical dilemmas in all processes of submission, evaluation, review, and publication of papers submitted to the journal, as well as for those detected after a paper has been published.

Authoring Criteria

AnálisiS Journal establishes the following criteria to guide the authors about how to determine which a person is a lead or secondary author of a work and distinguish this role from the collaborative role in the preparation of a written work.

1. Lead author and secondary author. It is the person who creates an idea and develops products and intellectual or creative works. The author must identify himself or herself according to his or her contributions to the work submitted for publication. Taking as a guide the Committee on Publication Ethics recommendations, the author is the person who:
   1. Makes substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work (develops the theme and elaborates it) or acquires, analyzes, and interprets data for the work.
   2. Develops the draft and reviews the work critically to develop valuable intellectual content.
   3. Approves the final version to be published.
   4. If the person only collaborates with one of these functions, the person will be considered a secondary author.
2. Collaborators who do not meet the authorship criteria. People who are part of the research team or collaborators, but do not meet the authorship requirements described in the previous paragraph, may be mentioned in a footnote as clarification or to thank them for their contributions. These people could be members of the research team, assistants, editors, and support staff. All people who are identified in this way should be aware of it.
3. Declaration of authorship and order: All persons who meet the authorship criteria must be appointed honoring the following provisions to establish order:
   1. The lead authors will be named first. They can be named in alphabetical order or according to the importance of the contribution to the final work.  
   2. The authors and secondary authors will be named in alphabetical order after the main ones. 

The research team may decide whether to identify other people who are part of the research team or collaborators, but who do not comply with the authorship requirements in a footnote format as clarification or to thank them for their contributions. These people could be members of the research team, editors, and support staff, among others. People listed in this way should be aware of it.