The journal establishes explicit editorial policies to govern the procedures and responsibilities related to the integrity and transparency of scientific publication. The journal will apply these procedures in a consistent and transparent manner, in accordance with best practices in scientific publishing, in order to ensure the quality of the content, the traceability of editorial decisions, and compliance with the principles of academic integrity.

1. Verification of originality and authenticity

The journal uses Turnitin—an online platform and academic assessment tool—to verify the originality of submissions, detect plagiarism, and check for the use of artificial intelligence, thereby ensuring the text is original and previously unpublished. If the text is based on previously published research, this must be disclosed to the editorial team. Additionally, key modifications must be made to ensure the work constitutes an original contribution.

Articles must present the author's own ideas. If plagiarism is detected, the article will not be published, and the author will be notified. For further information, please consult the code of ethics.

The content of published articles is the responsibility of the authors, who have reviewed current and relevant sources regarding the subject matter analyzed.

2. Corrections Policy

2.1. Retractions

Iuris Dictio adheres to the guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) regarding the handling of retractions and other actions aimed at preserving the integrity of the scholarly record.

Once a text (article, review, interview, or translation) has been published, it becomes part of the journal's scholarly record. However, if serious errors or ethical breaches compromising the reliability of its content are identified, an evaluation process may be initiated that could lead to its retraction.

Circumstances that may justify a retraction include:

• The identification of serious errors in data collection, analysis, or interpretation that compromise the validity of the results or conclusions.

• Data fabrication, falsification, or manipulation.

• Plagiarism or unjustified redundant publication.

• Serious breaches of research protocols or principles of academic integrity.

• Other substantial irregularities that compromise the reliability or legitimacy of the publication.

A request for retraction may be submitted by authors, members of the editorial team, or third parties providing substantiated information regarding potential irregularities. An author's request does not, in itself, constitute sufficient grounds to proceed with a retraction.

The Editor-in-Chief is responsible for receiving requests, gathering relevant documentation, and coordinating the evaluation process. The final decision rests with the editorial board, in accordance with principles of impartiality and transparency and COPE guidelines. Individuals involved in a potential conflict of interest will not participate in the evaluation or the resulting decision.

When a decision is made to retract a publication, the journal will issue a formal notice clearly identifying the affected text, explaining the reasons for the decision, and providing a link to the original publication.

As a general rule, the retracted text will remain available on the journal's website—clearly marked as such—to preserve the transparency and traceability of the scholarly record. The exceptional removal of a publication will only be considered when there are legal, privacy, or security reasons, or other duly justified circumstances.

2.2. Post-publication corrections

Iuris Dictio recognizes the importance of promptly correcting errors identified after publication to ensure the accuracy, transparency, and integrity of academic content.

When an author identifies a significant error in their published work, they must immediately notify the editorial team via a written request describing the nature of the error and, where appropriate, proposing the necessary modifications.

Correction requests may also arise from observations made by the editorial board, reviewers, readers, or other individuals who identify potential errors in a publication.

The Editor-in-Chief is responsible for receiving and reviewing these communications, requesting necessary clarifications, and coordinating the editorial assessment. The final decision regarding the necessity of a correction rests with the editorial board.

When the error does not compromise the validity of the publication's main results, arguments, or conclusions, the journal may issue a correction or an erratum, as appropriate.

Substantive corrections must be communicated transparently through an editorial notice that is clearly identified and linked to the original document. The journal will avoid making silent modifications that prevent the identification of changes introduced after publication.

Where applicable, published files, metadata, DOI records, and links between the original document and the correction notice will be updated.

The journal will maintain a record of the modifications made to ensure the integrity of the academic record.

2.3. Expressions of Concern

When there are well-founded indications of potential irregularities in a publication, but the available information is insufficient to determine whether a correction or retraction is warranted, Iuris Dictio may issue an "expression of concern," in accordance with COPE recommendations.

This measure serves an informational purpose, alerting readers to the existence of relevant issues currently under evaluation.

The editor-in-chief will coordinate the gathering of background information and any necessary consultations. The decision to publish an expression of concern rests with the editorial board.

The notice must clearly identify the publication in question, describe the nature of the concerns, and provide a link to the original document.

Once the evaluation is complete, the journal will determine whether to maintain, update, or remove the expression of concern, or whether to take other editorial action, such as issuing a correction or a retraction.

All subsequent actions must ensure the transparency of the process, the traceability of decisions, and the integrity of the scholarly record.

3. Statement on Plagiarism, Self-Plagiarism, and Data Manipulation

The journal Iuris Dictio maintains a zero-tolerance policy toward plagiarism, self-plagiarism, data manipulation, redundant publication, and any form of academic misconduct.

Plagiarism is defined as the total or partial reproduction of works, ideas, data, or texts belonging to third parties without proper attribution. Self-plagiarism refers to the substantial reuse of one’s own previously published work without the corresponding citation or academic justification.

Furthermore, the journal does not tolerate any form of fabrication, falsification, manipulation, or improper alteration of data, including the selective omission of information for the purpose of distorting results or conclusions.

All manuscripts will be submitted to similarity detection tools, such as Turnitin. If evidence of misconduct is identified, the journal will act in accordance with COPE guidelines, which may result in the rejection of the manuscript, retraction of published articles, and notification to the relevant institutions.

4. Policy on the Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) 

All manuscripts submitted for peer review to the journal Iuris Dictio are checked using the Turnitin similarity detection tool. This process is based on the Code of Honor and Coexistence of the Universidad San Francisco de Quito (USFQ) and the guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), with the aim of ensuring the originality and integrity of academic and scientific works. The journal permits the use of artificial intelligence (AI) tools solely as limited support for formal aspects, such as grammatical correction, stylistic improvement, or clarity of language.

In accordance with COPE guidelines, “authors who use AI tools in the drafting of a manuscript, the production of images or graphic elements of the article, or in the collection and analysis of data, must be transparent by disclosing in the ‘Author Contributions’ (or similar section) of the article how the AI tool was used and which tool was used. Authors are fully responsible for the content of their manuscript, including the parts produced by an AI tool, and are therefore responsible for any breach of publication ethics.”

The use of AI is not permitted for:

• Generating academic content (arguments, legal analysis, interpretation of results).
• Preparing literature reviews.
• Replacing the author’s critical judgment.
• Authors must explicitly declare the use of AI tools in the preparation of the manuscript.
• In all cases, authors are fully responsible for the content, including the AI-assisted portions, and will be held accountable for any ethical violations arising from its use.

5. Complaints and Appeals Policy 

The journal Iuris Dictio has a formal mechanism in place for submitting complaints and appeals related to the editorial process.

Authors may file an appeal if they believe that an editorial decision was unfair or did not follow established procedures. Appeals must be properly substantiated and submitted to the editorial team within 30 days of notification of the decision. Complaints based solely on the applicant’s disagreement with an editorial decision will not be considered.

It is essential that complaints or claims be presented clearly and precisely, and that they be supported by sufficient evidence to identify a possible violation of the journal’s editorial ethical principles.

Complaints that fall outside the journal’s scope of authority, such as personal conflicts between authors, editors, reviewers, or members of the editorial team, will be responded to with an explanation of why intervention is not possible. Furthermore, the journal reserves the right not to process complaints made in offensive, threatening, or defamatory terms.

Complaints may pertain to issues such as:

• Unjustified delays in the editorial process.
• Inappropriate conduct by reviewers or editors.
• Failure to comply with the journal’s policies.

The editorial team will review each case impartially, ensuring due process, confidentiality, and transparency. Depending on the nature and complexity of the complaint, it will be reviewed by the USFQ Press editorial team in accordance with the guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

To file a complaint or claim, please send an email to revistaiurisdictio@usfq.edu.ec , including as many details as possible and, where applicable, supporting documentation, such as copies of relevant correspondence. If the complaint refers to a specific article, please indicate the title and DOI if published, or the manuscript identification number if it is still in the editorial process.