The journal Iuris Dictio formally adheres to the principles, guidelines, flowcharts, and editorial code of conduct established by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and adopts its recommendations as a framework for the prevention, detection, and management of editorial misconduct.

Likewise, the journal is grounded in the Code of Honor and Coexistence of the Universidad San Francisco de Quito (USFQ), the institution that sponsors the publication together with the USFQ School of Law. This institutional framework reinforces the commitment to the principles of academic integrity, transparency, intellectual responsibility, and respect for the scientific community.

This policy applies to authors, reviewers, and editors, and constitutes a binding regulatory instrument within the editorial processes.

1. Authors’ Commitment and Responsibility

• Authors guarantee that the submitted manuscripts are original, unpublished, and the result of their own intellectual work. They declare that the manuscripts do not contain plagiarism, self-plagiarism, or substantial reproduction of previously published works without proper citation. Additionally, they agree not to simultaneously submit the same manuscript for review to another journal or academic publication.
• Authors must declare any academic, professional, financial, or personal conflicts of interest that could influence the results or interpretations presented. Additionally, the authors are solely responsible for the opinions and ideas expressed in their work.
• Authors ensure the accuracy, reliability, and traceability of the data, arguments, and sources used. Any form of fabrication, falsification, improper manipulation of data, or misrepresentation of results constitutes a serious ethical violation. All sources must be cited and referenced in accordance with the Authors Guidelines.. The use of copyrighted material requires the appropriate authorizations.
• Only those who have made a substantial contribution to the conceptualization, design, research, analysis, or writing of the manuscript should be listed as authors. The order of authorship must reflect the level of academic contribution. Practices such as honorary, guest, or ghost authorship are not permitted.
• If an author identifies a significant error in a published work, they must immediately notify the editorial team so that, if necessary, an erratum, correction, or retraction can be published.
• The use of generative artificial intelligence tools is permitted solely as limited support for formal aspects of writing (e.g., grammar or linguistic clarity) and must be explicitly disclosed. Under no circumstances may these tools replace the author’s academic judgment or undertake substantive tasks such as hypothesis formulation, legal analysis, or argumentative development. Authors are fully responsible for the content of the manuscript, including those sections assisted by AI tools.

2. Commitment and Responsibility of Reviewers

• Reviewers agree to provide well-reasoned, objective, respectful, and constructive evaluations based solely on the academic merit of the manuscripts.
• All manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They may not be shared or discussed with third parties without the express authorization of the editorial team.
• Reviews must focus exclusively on the scientific quality and thematic relevance of the manuscript, without discrimination based on the authors’ gender, sexual orientation, religion, nationality, institutional affiliation, or ideological stance.
• Reviewers must refrain from evaluating manuscripts in which there is any conflict of interest that could compromise their impartiality.
• Reviewers agree to meet the established deadlines or, failing that, to promptly inform the editorial team of their inability to complete the review.

3. Commitment and Responsibility of the Editorial Team

• The Editorial Team will select reviewers with demonstrable academic expertise and experience in the specific subject area of the manuscript.
• Decisions regarding acceptance, rejection, or requests for revisions will be based exclusively on academic quality, originality, methodological rigor, thematic relevance, and compliance with the journal’s ethical standards.
• Members of the Editorial Board must refrain from participating in the evaluation or decision-making process regarding manuscripts for which there is a conflict of interest.
• Editors must refrain from participating in the evaluation or decision-making regarding manuscripts for which a conflict of interest exists.
• In the event of suspected or reported misconduct (plagiarism, data manipulation, duplicate publication, or other improper practices), the Editor in Chief, in consultation with the Editorial Committee, will apply the procedures and flowcharts recommended by COPE and act in accordance with USFQ’s institutional principles, ensuring due process and transparency.
• The Editor in Chief, the editorial coordinator, and USFQ Press—through constant dialogue and coordination—are responsible for ensuring that deadlines for each phase of the editorial process are met and for providing timely follow-up when additional actions are required.

Plagiarism and Anti-Plagiarism

Iuris Dictio maintains a zero-tolerance policy toward plagiarism, self-plagiarism, redundant publication, and the fabrication, falsification, or manipulation of data. All manuscripts are screened using similarity detection tools, such as Turnitin. Authors are responsible for ensuring the originality, proper attribution of sources, and integrity of the data presented. In the event of evidence of academic misconduct, the journal will act in accordance with COPE guidelines. Violations may result in the rejection of the manuscript, the retraction of published articles, and notification to the relevant institutions.

More detailed information on the permitted use of AI can be found in the Editorial Policies section.

Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI)

The journal Iuris Dictio subjects manuscripts to similarity checks using Turnitin to ensure their originality and academic integrity. The use of AI is limited to formal tasks such as correcting grammar, style, and clarity; it is not permitted for generating academic content, preparing literature reviews, or substituting for the authors’ critical judgment. Its use must be disclosed transparently, specifying the tool used and its function. Authors are fully responsible for the published content and for adhering to the principles of editorial ethics.

More detailed information on the permitted use of AI can be found in the Editorial Policies section.

Complaints and Appeals

The journal Iuris Dictio has formal procedures in place to handle complaints and appeals regarding the editorial process. Appeals must be substantiated, accompanied by evidence when applicable, and submitted within the stipulated timeframe. The Editorial Team, with the support of USFQ Press when necessary, will analyze each case impartially, confidentially, and transparently, in accordance with COPE guidelines.

More detailed information on the use of the complaints and appeals process can be found in the Editorial Policies section.