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.

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• Authors guarantee that the submitted manuscripts are original, unpublished, and the result of their own intellectual work.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.
• 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.

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.

Commitment and Responsibility of the Editors

• 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.
• The editorial team will protect the confidentiality of manuscripts, as well as the identities of authors and reviewers, in accordance with the double-blind peer review process.
• Editors must refrain from participating in the evaluation or decision-making regarding manuscripts for which a conflict of interest exists.
• In the event of suspicions or allegations of misconduct (plagiarism, data manipulation, redundant publication, or other improper practices), the journal will apply the procedures and flowcharts recommended by COPE and act in accordance with USFQ’s institutional principles, ensuring due process and transparency.
• Editors are responsible for ensuring compliance with the deadlines applicable to each phase of the editorial process and for providing timely follow-up where additional action is required.

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.

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.

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.