About the Magazine

#PerDebate
ISSN:  2588-0896

ISSNe: 2697-3294

1. Focus and Scope

#PerDebate was born as an academic publication that combines professional and investigative experiences in journalism. It is an open space for practicing journalists, journalism professors, communication researchers, undergraduate and graduate students who wish to publish the results of their research. The publication was born in November 2017 and, although it is published from the Universidad San Francisco de Quito USFQ, it manages an editorial board with researchers from several universities in Ecuador and receives texts in both Spanish and English.

#PerDebate is an annual periodical, in November, of the Journalism program of the College of Communication and Contemporary Arts (COCOA) of the Universidad San Francisco de Quito USFQ. The publication is published in Spanish and English, it is also of scientific interest and aims to serve for the analysis and reflection of issues related to contemporary communication, with special emphasis on journalism. Articles will be published in it in which scientific and academic rigor is observed and that conform to the theme and rules of publication. To select the articles, the editorial board of #PerDebate meets. The material evaluation process begins by selecting articles that deal with current, original, and quality topics. However, eventually articles translated into Spanish will be welcomed by the authors of each article or editors who believe the translation of these, for the first time of special importance for the area, as well as interviews or presentations.

2. Editorial Process

From the call for papers, articles are received between the months of March and August on an annual basis. The entire editorial process, from selection to publication, is carried out on the Open Journal System (OJS) platform. Given the annual periodicity of the monographic series, the editorial flow begins with the receipt of unpublished articles, which have not been previously published in other journals nor are they in the phase of simultaneous evaluation of another publication. After the selection of the articles, in English or Spanish, by the editorial board, the blind peer review phase (double-blind modality) is inaugurated. This phase should not exceed 5 weeks. Reviewers will submit their comments and decisions in the format required by the monograph series: accepted, accepted with changes and modifications, or rejected. If the article is accepted without changes or modifications, it goes to the editorial production phase. However, if the reviewer suggests changes, the text will be forwarded to the author, so that he or she can handle the suggestions and changes. If the article is rejected by both evaluators, it will be communicated to the author and simultaneously the manuscript will be returned to its author. In the event of a discrepancy between evaluators, a third paragraph will be reviewed. The whole process takes about 8 months.

Editorial production consists of the following stages:

• Professional correction
• Design and layout
• Final review
• publication

2.1. Editorial guidelines for authors

• Spanish or English items submitted in Word are accepted.
• The writing must follow the seventh edition APA regulations.
• Images must be 300 dpi resolution and A4 size. #PerDebate reserves the right to diagram and select images.
• The tables or graphs must be included in the text in the corresponding order, with title and sequence number and fonts.
• The first page of the article should include:
• Title (85 characters including spaces in English and Spanish).
• Author data, academic degree, institutional affiliation, email.
• Abstract (English and Spanish) of maximum 500 characters including spaces.
• Three to five keywords (English and Spanish).

More information in the Guidelines  for author"™s section.

2.2. Peer review process

For the selection of articles, the editorial board of the journal #PerDebate submits the texts to a process of evaluation and arbitration, under the double-blind modality (blindpeer review). All articles must be original, unpublished, and not simultaneously evaluated in other publications. The estimated time between reception (March-August) and publication is 8 months.

The evaluation process is as follows:

The articles are received through the OJS platform, within the deadlines established by the annual call for papers. The submission must respect the rules of publication of the journal (APA format seventh edition). The monographic series is governed under the Creative Commons License, Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International (CC BY-NC 4.0).

The submission is reviewed, in the first instance, by the editorial committee and if the material received complies with the theme of the call and the rules of the monographic series, it moves on to the next phase: peer review. The editorial board reserves the right to reject articles that do not comply with the publication's regulations. It will consider the originality, the relevance to the call, the clarity in the expression, the methodological discussion, the results and the conclusions and reflections that the article proposes or raises.

The accepted articles are sent to two expert readers in the respective areas of knowledge (blind peer review) who will also be outside the editorial committee. Deliberate conclusions may be:

• publishable without modification or with minor modifications.
• publishable with prior review.
• not publishable.

The delivery time of the results may vary according to the volume of texts received in the call, but the approximate time to give the first result is 2 months. Authors will receive process updates and responses on decisions made by evaluators. If there are discrepancies between the two evaluators, the manuscript will be sent to a third evaluator. Once the discrepancies have been resolved, the decisions will be final.

The deadlines for making the corrections/modifications will be evaluated with each of the authors. Once the deadline for corrections is over, the articles will enter editorial production.

2.3. Periodicity of publication

The #PerDebate monographic series is an annual publication (November) in digital format, open access; whose contents are free of charge.

2.4. Policy of the monographer series and each section

#PerDebate requests and publishes articles on both empirical and theoretical research, as well as conceptual reflection on professional and creative practices. Each edition proposes a thematic axis, whose relevance in contemporary society allows it to be approached from the formal academic writing.

Each volume consists of four categories: journalistic genre, reflection, review, and substantiation.

1. Article in journalistic genre: refers to dialogues with prominent figures or journalistic investigations presented in interview, testimony, reportage, chronicles or another format as a genre.
2. Article of reflection: from an analytical, interpretative, or critical perspective of the author, on a specific subject, using original sources.
3. Review article: where the results of published or unpublished research are analyzed, systematized, and integrated. Undergraduate and postgraduate theses are included.
4. Article of substantiation: historical-epistemological where the theoretical contributions of people who set the guidelines in a field related to communication and / or journalism are analyzed.

3. Code of ethics and statement on negligence

The monographic series #PerDebate  adopts as normative the Code of Honor and Coexistence of the University San Francisco de Quito USFQ  with emphasis on title II: Ethics of research and creation; where the rights and responsibilities of researchers and conflict resolution protocols are detailed. The publication also considers the USFQ PRES Editorial Policies and  cope's code of ethics.  

• For authors (originality, multiple publications, sources, authorship and conflicts of interest and disclosure)

Original and unpublished articles that are not part of other editorial selection processes are received in other serial publications. The monographic series #PerDebate uses the app  iThenticate-Similarity Check application that works with Turnitin.

Authors should not publish the same article or research results in more than one journal or monographic series or send the text to other journals, during the editorial process of #PerDebate.

Authors should review the sources of their articles so that they are current and correct.

The order of the co-authors should be based on the level of collaboration and contribution in the conceptualization, elaboration, interpretation and writing of the manuscript. *In case it is necessary the modification of co-authorship (change of authors or inclusion of new authors), once the arbitration phase of the manuscript has begun, the editorial committee of #PerDebatewill proceed as described in the COPE code of ethics. Intellectual property rights lie with the authors.

Authors must make the declaration of conflict of interest (Cdl) before entering the manuscript into the selection process. This section is in the Shipment Preparation Checklist that appears on the Submit Item button in the OJS of the #PerDebatemonographicseries.

The authors must declare and communicate, via mail, in case there is any personal or financial relationship between the authors of the article and persons or public or private entities, which may give rise to possible conflict of interest.

The conflict of interest, in the editorial circuit, occurs when the author or several authors, during workflows (writing, peer review, production or publication) maintain links with activities or relationships that may influence their judgment inappropriately and thus carry out unethical research behaviors that culminate in academic malpractice. The most common situations in the CdI field have to do with financial relationships, kinships, personal relationships, and academic rivalry.

It is also the task of reviewers and editors to reveal any issues surrounding the CdI.

There are two times when authors must make the CdI declaration: the first consists of the Checklist for the preparation of submissions; while the second is linked to the manuscript, where they must place whether there is a conflict of interest. This should be made clear in the publication of the manuscript, even if it is accepted.

By not declaring the CdI, the manuscript may be rejected by the editorial board. If an undisclosed CdI is published after the editorial flow of #PerDebate,the editorial board will take action in accordance with COPE regulations and issue a public statement on the OJS.

• For arbitrators or reviewers (arbitration process, modality of review of the monographic series, respect for times, confidentiality, disclosure, and conflict of interest).

The modality of the evaluation process is double-blind; where the reviewers do not know the identity of the authors of the submitted articles nor do the authors know the identity of their evaluators. Hence, editors are responsible for mediating interactions between reviewers and authors.

The referees are active researchers, with a fourth level degree, who stand out for their professionalism, academic trajectory, and mastery of the areas of knowledge that #PerDebate treats. The reviewers are committed to evaluating the articles with an objective view and with academic, honest and biased criteria; to provide editors with truthful information about the quality of articles and to point out suggestions or comments addressed to authors, so that they can improve the academic manuscript.

Reviewers should detail the corresponding review formats, indicating the reasons why they accept or reject the revision of an article, and, in addition, they must warn editors, in case of duplication, conflict of interest, ethical problems or invented data.

The editorial board will act impartially if any of the problems listed above arise. In addition, the editor may go to a third evaluator, in case there are discrepancies between the reviewers regarding the rejection or acceptance of a manuscript. The decision of the third party shall be final and final.

The evaluators undertake to carry out the requested review within the deadlines established by the editorial team of #PerDebate (5 weeks).

The treatment of the double-blind review process is confidential. The reviewers, not knowing the identity of the authors and vice versa, should give the appropriate treatment to this activity, in order to promote the transparency and honesty of this process; therefore, the reviewer will not be able to discuss the contents and data of the research with third parties, prior to the publication of the volume.

Any information related to the review process may not be used for personal purposes nor may it be shared with third parties.

The arbitrators agree to notify and inform the editor, if they suspect that in the manuscript they are evaluating, no conflict of interest has been revealed that should have been stated in the document.

Furthermore, the arbitrator should not accept the assignment of the revision of a particular manuscript if he has a potential competing interest, including the following:

• previous or current collaborations with the alleged perpetrator(s);
• is a direct competitor
• you may have a known history of antipathy to the alleged perpetrator(s);
• have a personal relationship of affinity with the author(s) that compromises the objectivity of the evaluation.
• it could benefit financially from the work.

Evaluators should identify a potential conflict of interest and disclose it to editors. In case of not being able to carry out the evaluation, they must also declare this information to the editor without any discrimination or favoritism with respect to the alleged author(s).

• For editors (decisions, confidentiality, conflict of interest and disclosure, conflict of interest of editors, respect for times, errors in published articles.

The editors, once the blind peer review has been carried out, must choose the articles with the highest academic quality and contribution, according to the theme proposed for each volume of #PerDebate. During selection, publishers shall not have any discriminatory behavior or favoritism towards authors.

Editors are responsible for conducting, once they have the results of the evaluators, the review of selected articles through the Similarity Check anti-plagiarism app that works with iThenticate and Turnitin. This phase is of utmost importance since the originality of the manuscripts will be verified. In the event of plagiarism, the editors will communicate this information to the USFQ PRESS and the USFQ Ombusperson.

In the process of reviewing the work of the evaluators, the editorial board of #PerDebate and the USFQ PRESS will not be flexible with bad investigative practices, such as plagiarism, information invented in manuscripts, duplication with respect to already published submissions and fraud in any of its forms. The editorial committee will make available to the Ombudsperson, in accordance with the regulations of the Universidad San Francisco de Quito USFQ.

Editors undertake not to disclose information related to articles submitted with persons other than the authors, reviewers, and other editors of #PerDebate. Likewise, they acquire the commitment of the confidentiality of the contents of the manuscripts, authors, and arbitrators, in order to guarantee the integrity and transparency of the editorial processes.

The editors and the USFQ PRESS team undertake not to use in their own research the contents and data of articles submitted to the monographic series for evaluation, without the prior written consent of the author or authors. Similarly, any conflict of interest between authors and publishers will be avoided.

Editors-in-Chief and USFQ PRESS must declare their own competing interests or conflict of interest and, if necessary, disqualify themselves from the corresponding process if they detect CdI. Editors should report to USFQ PRESS, so that they can look for unbiased editors to perform workflows in the OJS.

The most common reasons for editors to excuse themselves from participating in the editorial process of a manuscript may be:

• collaborate with an author(s) currently or recently,
• have published with an author(s) during the last 5 years,
• have had grants with an author(s) currently or recently,
• have a personal relationship with an author or authors, as this can detract from objectivity in the editorial process.

The editors are committed to respecting the times of the different editorial stages in the OJS. Depending on the revenue stream and peer review processes, editors will communicate with authors when a manuscript has been accepted for publication or rejected. Publishers should also tell authors the dates of publication of the volume. The total process between the receipt of manuscripts and the notification of the results will not be more than 5 months.

Editors will be willing to post corrections, clarifications, retractions, and apologies in published articles, when the situation warrants it.

The performance of the team of the monographic series #PerDebate and the USFQ PRESS, in the face of suspicions of inappropriate conduct in relation to the sending of manuscripts or the publication of articles, will be governed by the provisions of the Code of Honor and Coexistence, editorial policies and the code of ethics of COPE, summarized in the Set of Flowcharts that show the way to proceed for the following cases:

• Suspected plagiarism.
• Suspicion of plagiarism in published article.
• Suspicion of duplicity in the manuscript received.
• Suspicion of duplicity in the published article.
• Reviewer suspects conflict of interest not previously stated in the manuscript.
• Reader suspects conflict of interest in the published article.
• Suspicion of invented data in the manuscript received.
• Suspicion of invented data in the published article.

4. Open Access Policy

The monographic series #PerDebate adopts the Open Access model. All items are available, free of charge and immediately, in the OJS. This policy promotes the objectives of DOAJ and OA to disseminate the results of research in the field of communication and academic journalism.

Articles can be found and downloaded on the publication page. If it is necessary to share them, we request to cite the sources following the recommendations of the letterheads located at the beginning of each article.

#PerDebate is a non-profit publication, funded by the Universidad San Francisco de Quito USFQ, together with the publishing house USFQ PRESS which has the legal department of the university.

The benefits of Open Access for authors include the following:

• free access for all users globally,
• the authors own the copyright of their works,
• mays visibility and readership,
• diversification of content,
• disclosure of research.

At the time the manuscript is selected and evaluated, this implies the simultaneous non-submission to other journals or publishing bodies and the non-exclusive assignment of the economic rights of the authors in favor of the publisher; who allows reuse, after its edition (postprint), under the Creative Commons Attribution-Non-Commercial 4.0 International License (CC BY-NY 4.0). Through this type of license you can share, copy, distribute, alter, transform, generate a derivative work, perform and publicly communicate the work, provided that:

• the authorship and the original source of its publication (editorial magazine and URL of the work) are cited.
• the material in the monographic series is not used for commercial purposes.
• the same terms of the license are respected and maintained.

The assignment of non-exclusive rights also implies the authorization by the authors for the work to be deposited in the repository of the USFQ PRESS, in the OJS of the academic and scientific journals. Everything is also recorded in the University Library.

5. Digital Preservation Policy (archive)

#PerDebate is preserved in the digital repository and in the newspaper library of the San Francisco University of Quito. The magazine's layout files are preserved on an external hard drive managed by the College of Communication and Contemporary Arts of the Universidad San Francisco de Quito USFQ.

Additionally, this magazine uses the LOCKSS system for conservation and restoration purposes.

6. Copyright and Intellectual Property Notice

#PerDebate is a publication of the College of Communication and Contemporary Arts of the Universidad San Francisco de Quito USFQ and USFQ PRESS. Copyright is owned by the authors of each article.

The works published in this journal are subject to the following terms: COCOA retains the economic rights(copyright)of the published works, favors and allows the reuse of the same by clearly naming their origin.

7. Editorial board

Eduardo Albán, University of Salamanca, Spain.

Fernanda Tusa, Technical University of Machala, Ecuador.

Gustavo Cusot, Universidad de Artes, Ciencia y Comunicación, Chile.

Luisa Torrealba, Central University of Venezuela, Venezuela.

Pamela Cruz, Technical University of Cotopaxi, Ecuador.

Patricio Pérez, University of Málaga, Spain.

Paz Crisóstomo, Universidad Carlos III de Madrid, Spain.

Saudia Levoyer, Universidad Andina Simón Bolívar, Ecuador.

Sofía Cabrera, University of Salamanca, Spain.