Eseconomía Journal, its editorial team, reviewers, and all individuals involved in the publication of its issues are committed to best practices. Therefore, we seek compliance with the guidelines established by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and the Singapore Statement on Research Integrity (https://www.wcrif.org/guidance/singapore-statement).

Code of ethics for the editor

The editor must assign reviewers according to the scope of the manuscript’s content in order to obtain the most appropriate critique. They must provide all necessary information to reviewers to ensure a proper academic evaluation.

The editor must clearly and explicitly communicate the journal’s policies and guidelines. They must ensure impartiality in the evaluation of manuscripts and that the process is free from conflicts of interest.

They must provide evaluation formats and tools for reviewers and authors to facilitate tracking of the review process.

They must respond within established timeframes to follow up on reviews or to address any questions or requests from reviewers or authors.

They must enforce sanctions in cases of ethical misconduct.

At all times, they must respect the confidential nature of the review process and not disclose details of the research after peer review unless they have the author’s permission.

Code of ethics for authors

Authors who have benefited from the peer review process should consider becoming reviewers as part of their professional responsibility.

They must respond to and address reviewers’ comments within the established timelines.

The language used in the manuscript must be clear, concise, coherent, and based on scientific evidence.

Code of ethics for reviewers

Individuals interested in becoming reviewers must follow the journal’s peer review guidelines and requirements. Reviewers must offer their professional and personal expertise appropriate to their role. A reviewer should only accept evaluating a manuscript if they have the necessary knowledge and can provide an impartial assessment.

If the reviewer belongs to the same institution as any of the authors or has any other conflict of interest, they must disclose it and decline the review.

Once a review is accepted, it must be completed within the journal’s established deadlines. If an extension is needed, the reviewer must notify the journal.

If the reviewer is unable to evaluate the manuscript, they must inform the journal and are encouraged to suggest qualified reviewers who do not have conflicts of interest.

If there are doubts about the manuscript, missing files, or incomplete information, the reviewer must contact the journal. Under no circumstances should they contact the authors. If the reviewer suspects the identity of the authors and this may create a conflict of interest, they must notify the journal.

Reviewers may not involve third parties in the review without the journal’s permission. The names of any contributors must be communicated to the journal for proper acknowledgment.

Reviewers must remain impartial regardless of nationality, religion, political ideology, gender, or other characteristics of the authors. If unable to comply with this, they must inform the journal.

If the reviewer identifies ethical concerns—such as substantial similarity between the manuscript under review and another published work—they must notify the editor promptly.

Reviewers must be objective and constructive, providing feedback that helps improve the manuscript. Criticism must be clear, specific, and supported by evidence. Hostile language, derogatory comments, or unfounded accusations must be avoided.

If the manuscript lacks sufficient analysis, the reviewer should suggest what type of analysis could strengthen it. It is not the reviewer’s role to expand the manuscript’s scope.

The reviewer must prepare their report independently unless authorized by the journal to involve others. They must refrain from unjustified negative comments, avoid suggesting citations that benefit themselves or associates, and must not intentionally delay the review process by requesting unnecessary information.

---

Good practices in research

Artificial intelligence Tools (IA)

Artificial intelligence (AI) tools cannot be listed as authors of an article, as they cannot assume responsibility for the research conducted, nor can conflicts of interest be determined or copyright managed. Authors who use AI tools must be transparent and indicate in the methods section how and which tools were used. Authors are fully responsible for the content of their manuscript, including any parts generated with AI, and are accountable for any breaches of editorial ethics.