About the Journal

General considerations on editorial management, ethics of scientific publication and bad practices

The Journal of the Latin American Association for Quality Control, Pathology and Construction Recovery (Alconpat Journal, RA), adheres to the international regulations defined by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Some standards can be consulted at:

COPE guidelines on good publication practice:

https://publicationethics.org/core-practices

Next, within this document, all the Policies that are implemented within the RA are described, such as Editorial Management and Ethics of the publication.

Editorial management

Objective:

The ALCONPAT Journal aims to publish contributions of basic or applied research directly related to solving problems related to quality control, pathology and recovery of constructions, with related case studies being welcomed in these areas.

Scope:

The ALCONPAT Journal is aimed at the scientific and technical environment of the construction industry.

Open Access Policy

The Alconpat Journal provides immediate open access to its content with the principle and conviction that making research freely available to the public supports a greater global exchange of knowledge.

It allows the complete content of the journal to be downloaded for free in digital format (PDF).

It also authorizes the author to place the article in the format published by the journal (author's guide, http://www.revistaalconpat.org) on his personal website. The author can distribute copies of the published article in electronic or printed format to whom he/she deems appropriate and reuse part of the article in his/her future articles, as long as they give the corresponding credits as indicated in the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license (CC BY 4.0).

The publication has no cost whatsoever for the authors. That means there are no fees for the review and publication process.

Copyright Policies

Articles published in Revista Alconpat will be Open-Access articles distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The copyright is retained by the author(s). Revista Alconpat will insert the following note at the end of the published text:

DOWNLOAD COPYRIGHT LETTER FORMAT

Note: It is essential for the publication that Revista ALCONPAT receives this bill of rights. Without it, publication cannot proceed.

Please, complete all the specified fields and return this form correctly filled out and signed in PDF format to the email of the journal editorial.revista.alconpat@gmail.com

Ethical Criteria Policy on the participants of the editorial process

Here are some general considerations about the role of each of the participants in the editorial process: general editor, associate editors, authors, and reviewers.

The evident growth of scientific publications in recent decades has led to the implementation of various strategies worldwide in order to assess the quality of specialized scientific journals, highlighting in most cases, the assessment of criteria based on aspects of form (presentation), content of the journal and editorial management. These last criteria allow assessing and guaranteeing the fulfillment of minimum requirements in the edition of serial scientific publications, such as the formation of an editorial committee, standardization and periodicity, therefore, to be in this direction, the Alconpat journal will take some of the measures that normally evaluate the excellence and quality of specialized scientific journals, in the field of dissemination.

Standards of ethical behavior that are expected from all parties involved in the act of RA publication: the author, the reviewer, the associate editor, the editor-in-chief and ALCONPAT.

a) Duties of the editorial committee and the director (editor in chief) of the journal

In the first instance, all contributions will be evaluated by the director of the journal with the help of members of the RA editorial committee. This evaluation will address the following issues:

That the contributions are adjusted to the topics in which the journal specializes, that they represent relevant contributions to scientific and technological knowledge, and that they comply with the standards and guidelines for submitting originals
The editorial committee will consider the manuscripts submitted for publication, solely based on the academic and scientific merits of each text.
All texts must follow the rules for submitting originals established by the journal.
Manuscript reviews are carried out through the Associate Editors and the Editor-in-Chief, relying on a portfolio of referees who receive feedback every day. The arbitrations are carried out ad-honorem by renowned peers. The reviewers receive a message of thanks and proof for the arbitration carried out.
The responsibility for accepting or rejecting a text rests with the director of the journal, who will be based for the decision on the corresponding anonymous opinions.
If the opinions do not coincide, the editorial committee will send the text to a third opinion.
The editorial committee will always maintain the principle of double blindness in the review process and may not disclose the names of the reviewers under any circumstances to avoid any type of conflict of interest.
In the event of a conflict of interest because the authors are members of the journal's editorial committee, the proposed text will be evaluated by experts outside the journal and the institution to which the authors belong.
The responsibility for accepting or rejecting a collaboration will lie with the director and will be based exclusively on the result of the evaluations carried out by each of the bodies in charge of it.
The director of the journal and the Editorial Committee reserve the right to disallow published works that contain manifest and proven unreliability derived from bad scientific practices such as, among others, the omission of bibliographic or documentary references, and reproduction without cite the authorship of research by other authors.

b) Duties of the reviewers
Reviewers will evaluate papers objectively and confidentially. The reviewers should be aware that their task is a fundamental part of a process that guarantees the quality of the publication.
Reviewers who notice the existence of a conflict of interest with the evaluated authors must waive the evaluation and report this situation to the journal director as soon as possible.
The reviewer who considers not to be qualified to judge a work must return the text to the director of the journal, within a period of no more than ten days.
The reviewers will undertake to carry out the evaluation within a period of no more than fifteen days.
The reviewer must reason his evaluation based on his knowledge of the matter.
Reviewers should not use unpublished information, arguments, or interpretations, contained in a manuscript that they judge, without the author's consent.
Reviewers should clearly explain their assessment, so that the editorial committee and the author understand the analytical basis for their comments.

c) Duties of the Authors
Authors must follow the "Rules for submitting originals" established by the journal.
According to the “Rules for the submission of originals”, the authors may only present original and unpublished research; Research already published will not be accepted. They must ensure that the documentary evidence and the results presented in their articles are the product of an original work. It is mandatory to identify all the published and unpublished works of other authors that were used and that served as background to the article that is submitted for evaluation. (Attaching letter of originality).
Authors should not simultaneously submit the same article for publication in other journals.
The authors will state in the citations and references, and in the bibliography, the sources used for their research.
The authors must cite the authorship and origin of all the images that they include in their texts (tables, graphs, maps, photographs, etc.). If necessary, the authors will be responsible for managing the reproduction permissions.
Authors must clearly present the results of their research and its relevance.
The authors' texts will not be subject to evaluation until all the requirements established in the "Standards for submission of originals" established by the journal are met.
If the evaluations condition the publication of the contributions to making adjustments and corrections, the authors must make these corrections within a period of no more than fifteen days. When the authors send the corrected version, they will attach a letter detailing the changes introduced in the new versions, together with their higher quality figures and original graphics in editable format.
The authors, once they have received the notification that their texts will be published, must attend the layout tests, and grant the journal the “copyright” format.

d) Plagiarism detection

The RA uses specialized software (Crossref Similarity Check) to detect plagiarism in the contributions it receives.

Peer Review Policy

The academic peer review of the manuscripts submitted for publication in scientific journals of different kinds has been a fundamental procedure to assess the quality of the work of the authors and the institutions that support the research groups.

Articles received may be rejected by the Executive Editor before being submitted for evaluation if the format does not conform to what is indicated in the rules for authors or if the subject is outside the editorial line of the journal. This will occur within a maximum period of two weeks after being received. Authors will be able to submit their article as a new manuscript once the format issue and focus on the objectives and scope of the journal have been addressed.

Once the article is received in the format and with the focus of the journal, the Editor-in-Chief will assign the articles received to an Associate Editor, who will select two external reviewers specialized in the matter, who will review it according to the double-blind procedure, guaranteeing the confidential nature of the process.

The RA undertakes to notify the author of the decision taken within a maximum period of six months. The Editorial Committee will make the decision considering the external reports on the publication or rejection of each article.

The manuscripts received will be subject to the editorial process mentioned above, which takes place in several stages:

a) Initial review:

Manuscripts will be submitted to a preliminary evaluation by the Editor, to see if they correspond to the publication topics of the journal and are adjusted to its objectives and scope.
The works must be original and will be reviewed with an anti-plagiarism software to verify their originality. If not, they will be rejected.
In a first stage, works that are insufficiently original, have serious scientific errors, have poor grammatical or use of language, or are outside the objectives and scope of the journal are rejected.
Manuscripts must comply with the format requirements according to the authors guide. In case of not complying with them, they will be returned to them for correction, and they will have to submit it again for review (as a new article).
Authors of manuscripts rejected at this initial stage will be informed within two weeks after receipt.

b) Peer review:

Those texts that meet the minimum editorial and originality criteria are sent to at least two experts for review.
Before assigning reviewers to the manuscript, it is verified that the reviewers do not belong to the country or institution where the work comes from.
Manuscripts are subjected to a double-blind evaluation process, in which the authors do not know the evaluators and vice versa. The result of the academic opinion process is final.
Generally, the peer review process takes about 3-6 months.

c) Selection process:

Manuscripts that are conditioned to make minor or major changes must comply with the reviewers' recommendations before being considered for publication.
Authors must submit a reply letter, where they respond to each of the comments made by the reviewers, explaining in detail what they did to correct the comments received, demonstrating what was done in the corrected version, marking each change in a color different from the rest of the text (preferably red).
The estimated time for sending your corrections is one month (30 days). By not complying with this time, the work will be terminated immediately.
If the decision is reevaluable, the work returns to the reviewers who evaluated it in the first round for a new opinion (this would be round two).
There is no charge for the review and publication process.

Decision types:

Revision 1	Revision 2	Revision 3	Decision
Accepted	Accepted		Accepted
Accepted	Publishable with modifications		Publishable with modifications
Publishable with modifications	Revaluable		Revaluable
Revaluable	Revaluable		Revaluable
Accepted	Rejected	Accepted	Publishable
Accepted	Rejected	Publishable with modifications	Publishable with modifications
Accepted	Rejected	Revaluable	Revaluable
Revaluable	Rejected		Not Publishable
Rejected	Rejected		Not Publishable

Peer review type

The RA employs a double-blind review, where the referee and the author remain anonymous throughout the process.

Digital Archiving Policy

It is not allowed to publish in any way a manuscript (pre-print) sent for publication in the journal prior to its evaluation and acceptance. Once the publication of a manuscript has been accepted, its author may publish it in the final version with the corrections made (post-print) on their personal website or in an academic institutional repository (of their institution or company) with the reference to their "acceptance in the journal" indicating the volume. Once the publication in the journal is materialized, the text must be replaced as soon as possible by the one finally published in the pdf format provided by the journal editor. There is no embargo period, the author has full freedom for the public dissemination of the pdf file by any means, just after the journal publishes his article.

Digital preservation policy

The RA has an established policy of digital preservation, currently the journal uses the PKP Preservation Network (PN) system with LOCKSS (Lots of Copies Keep Stuff Safe) that works easily for the preservation of XML information and OJS metadata, with This will create a distributed file system among collaborating libraries, which allows creating permanent archives of the journal for conservation and restoration purposes. To learn more about it, see the LOCKSS Publication Manifesto page.

Criteria for the opinion process

Proposed manuscripts that conform to the editorial line of the journal and meet the minimum essential conditions of a well-supported academic work and with a coherent writing, will be sent for its opinion and / or arbitration.
Manuscripts will be refereed by at least two reviewers external to the journal and experts in the subject of interest, these will be researchers and academics of recognized prestige whose lines of work coincide with the subject addressed in each text, who will determine if the material complies with the quality and objectives of the journal.
Manuscripts are subjected to a double-blind evaluation process, in which the authors do not know the evaluators and vice versa. The result of the academic opinion process is final.
The evaluation criteria suggested to the reviewers will be the following:

Attention to its content.Consider the originality, rigor, interest, and timeliness of the approaches, as well as their relevance to the field of education.
Attention to the general structure of the work.That the exposition is made with a coherent logic and that it achieves its analytical cohesion.
Attention to writing.Exhibition quality.

The final opinion will be made known to the authors by means of an “Evaluation Letter” or “Decision Letter” and may be one of the following:

- Accept submission: the text will automatically go to the editing stage, provided that the second opinion is also publishable without objection. If both reviewers make that decision, the editor-in-chief is responsible for reviewing it at their discretion and if they agree with the reviewers' decision, they make the decision to publish it as is or if any change in the work has to be addressed (regularly these changes are in format).

- Publishable with modifications: manuscripts that are conditioned to make minor or major changes must comply with the recommendations of the reviewers before being considered for publication. In this case, the author will be informed if the work needs modifications, which will be indicated exactly, and it will be up to the author if it incorporates them or not. The author will have a period of 30 days, counted from the date of return, to present the corrected version of his text together with a reply where he responds to each comment of the reviewer. Once these changes have been made, the text will be reviewed again by the Editor-in-Chief and will proceed to be published.

- Revaluable: In this case, the author will be indicated what deep modifications should be made to the work. The author will have a reasonable period of time to present the corrected version of his text, which will be reviewed again by the same referees and by the Editor-in-Chief, this to verify that the requested changes and to what extent the reviewers' recommendations have been made satisfactorily (known in the system as Round 2 or second round). This new version must also be sent together with a reply letter, where the authors compulsorily reply to the reviewers for the changes made regarding their review. The referees who evaluated in the first round are the ones who will be in charge of reviewing the new version again, this to see if their proposals were addressed, once the reviewers evaluate it again and make the decision to either accept it, publish it after making some more changes, or reject it, the Editor-in-chief of the journal is the one who makes the final decision regarding the decision of the reviewers and their own criteria, in this case going to the point of publishable with modifications, accepting or rejecting it.

- Not publishable: Here the judge will clearly state the reasons why he considers that the text cannot be published in the RA. The decision is made based on what the reviewers have concluded, the Editor-in-Chief of the RA reviews their comments and if he agrees with the rejection of the manuscript, he is the one who makes the decision not to publish it.

- Conflicting opinions: In the event that the opinions are opposite (one reviewer asks for it to be published and the other does not), a third opinion will be requested from another referee from the same area, this is so that the Editor-in-Chief can take an appropriate decision, based on the results of similar evaluations, either approved (publishable with modifications or reassessed) or rejected, and the third arbitration will be discarded.

The resolution of the arbitrators is final.
In the event that the judgment process cannot be initiated due to not having the necessary number of arbitrators under the conditions established by the regulations, the author or authors will be notified for their knowledge and decision on withdrawing or keeping the arbitrators awaiting manuscript.

Ethics of scientific publishing.

Policy on authorship and contribution:

Before submitting a manuscript for evaluation, the Executive Editor will review the transparency of the manuscript regarding the contribution of each person and in what capacity. For this, the authors guide provides an example on its first page, which shows how contributions should be written.

The ownership of copyright is governed by Alconpat Journal adherence to the Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 license. For this, the authors guide contemplates the inclusion of the terms of the Creative Commons license on its cover.

Complaints and Appeals Policy:

The Alconpat Journal did not contemplate the handling of complaints and appeals. However, upon learning about these issues, it was decided to adopt the maximum openness through the publication in revistaalconpat.org the adherence to COPE for complaints and appeals, leaving the corresponding text as follows:

The Alconpat Journal adheres to the principles and norms of the Publications Ethics Committee (COPE) to solve any ethical problem (redundancy, duplication, presumption of plagiarism, complaints and appeals, conflicts of interest).

Published policy on conflicts of interest:

The Alconpat Journal did not contemplate the management of a policy on conflicts of interest. However, when learning about these issues, it was decided to adopt the maximum openness through the publication in revistaalconpat.org the attachment to COPE for conflicts of interest, leaving the corresponding text as follows:

The Alconpat Journal adheres to the principles and norms of the Publications Ethics Committee (COPE) to solve any ethical problem (redundancy, duplication, presumption of plagiarism, complaints and appeals, conflicts of interest).

Policy on Ethical Oversight:

The Alconpat Journal has an ethical supervision policy consisting of consenting to the disclosure of its content through massive tools, especially when it is aimed at vulnerable populations, with limited resources, or with the inability to access the internet. The presentation of the content in larger audiences such as seminars, congresses, webinars, workshops or others in this type of population is also allowed. The ethical supervision of Revista Alconpat consists of ensuring that the contents disclosed and / or presented receive the credits and the ethical treatment regarding confidential data and business practices. The foregoing implies ensuring that there is no profit other than that stated in our Creative Commons license.

Intellectual property policy:

Alconpat Journal has a policy on intellectual property that includes copyright, in adherence to the Creative Commons license. The journal does not handle the concept of pre-publication. As part of the policy on intellectual property, a prestigious anti-plagiarism software (Similarity Check is a service provided by Crossref and powered by iThenticate) is used, with which a net originality of 70% is expected in the published content. In addition, it is established that there is a cost exemption associated with the publication as long as the support granted by Conacyt is maintained.

Post-publication discussion and correction policy:

The Alconpat Journal has opened the possibility of discussion and reply to the articles after their publication. This possibility is manifested at the bottom of the cover page of the article, where the date on which the documentation must be received and the date on which it would be published is even provided. As an example, see below the case of volume 10 number 2, May - August 2020:

“Any discussion, including the authors' reply, will be published in the first issue of the year 2021 as long as the information is received before the closing of the third issue of the year 2020.”

Policy on Interoperability Protocols:

The Alconpat Journal provides an OAI-PMH (Open Archives Initiative - Protocol for Metadata Harvesting) interface that allows other portals and information services to access the metadata of the published content.

Specifications:

OAI-PMH Protocol Version 2.0

Dublin Core Metadata

Route for harvesters: https://revistaalconpat.org/index.php/RA/oai

Bad habits

The Alconpat Journal considers the following bad practices:

Present the same article simultaneously for review and publication in other journals: Authors must express in writing that the manuscript is not being simultaneously submitted for publication in another journal, that all authors are aware of the results and that they agree with them, in order to avoid later conflicts between authors.

Lack of recognition of the contributions (original sources) of other researchers: In the text of the manuscript the authors must appropriately cite the texts, works and methodologies of other researchers that allowed to design the project, obtain and discuss the results of the submitted manuscript. In case of omitting these contributions, plagiarism actions would be incurred.

Use of material with the rights of third-party authors, without the corresponding permission: The authors must cite the authorship and origin of all the images that they include in their texts (tables, graphs, maps, photographs, etc.). If necessary, the authors will be responsible for managing the reproduction permissions.

Undeclared conflicts of interest: All authors must express the potential conflicts of interest associated with the publication.

Errors admitted in published articles: When any author discovers an error in the work already published that could affect the validity of the results, they will be obliged to immediately notify the editor of the journal and cooperate so that the article is retracted or corrected.

The consequence of the use of bad practices in an article submitted for evaluation for the Alconpat Journal will be an eventual rejection, while the bad practices are corrected. Then, it would be turned over for evaluation.

Fees

Article Submission fees

Article submission charges do not apply to this journal.

Article translation fees:

Since the ALCONPAT Journal publishes the articles in Spanish, English and Portuguese, the author (s) undertakes to pay the cost of translating from his native language into English. This payment is unavoidable and will be made directly to the translation service.

In this case it is recommended to use the Elsevier service:

http://webshop.elsevier.com/languageservices/translationservices/?gclid=EAIaIQobChMIt-6Akf761QIVj1t-Ch2iVQTXEAAYASAAEgJig_D_BwE

Article Publication fees:

The RA has, from its inception, a regulation in which publication fees are contemplated to cover administration and publication expenses. However, to date, and based on direct communication to the authors, their payment has been permanently exempted until our editorial solvency (belonging to higher indexes, higher demand, impact index, etc.) and administration do so require. Until now, and since its inception, the ALCONPAT Journal has financed its maintenance with the support of the Association, however, once it was indexed among the Mexican Journals of Science and Technology of CONACyT, it had more resources, thanks to which Improvements were achieved such as: the OJS evaluation system, Redalyc indexing, SciELO Mexico indexing, own domain, DOI number, etc.