Ethical Criteria

Publication Ethics

1. Ethical criteria for authors

Authors should submit only original manuscripts that have not been previously published are not being considered for publication elsewhere.

Authors are responsible for the reliability of their work. Therefore, if, despite peer review and plagiarism detection processes, an article of doubtful authenticity or credibility is published, this falls within the responsibility of the author.

If, once the article has been published, the author wishes to include a correction, he will contact the journal directly so that the Editorial Team can assess its expedience and, in case the correction were appropriate, apply it where necessary.

Following academic conventions, authors will cite content from other sources to avoid plagiarism. They will either adhere to a regularized citation system or to Celestinesca's recommendations.

All funding sources should be acknowledged, as should all other sources of support, and include all the relevant information.

If the manuscript has been previously submitted to a different journal, but it has not been published or it has been rejected, authors will acknowledge this in the corresponding section of the submission form and explain why they are resubmitting it to Celestinesca.

If part of the manuscript has been previusly published or is awaiting publication, authors will make sure they are allowed to reuse that material and will acknowledge this in the corresponding section of the submission form.

Authors are responsible for making sure that they own the rights of the submitted work and the accompanying materials, including copyrighted third party material. In doubtful cases, authors will acknowledge this in the corresponding section of the submission form to avoid future problems.

In no case will authors submit manuscripts of libellous or discriminatory nature, or which harm the dignity of any person(s) or group. Moreover, manuscripts written with potentially damaging intent or which could be used with damaging intent will not be accepted.

Authors commit to inform the Editorial Board about any conflict of interest or ethical conflict that might arise in a timely manner, so that the necessary measures can be taken.

2. Ethical criteria for editors and special sections coordinators

Editors and/or special sections coordinators commit to act in a transparent, non discriminatory way.

They commit to inform the Editorial Board about any conflict of interest or ethical conflict that might arise in a timely manner, so that the necessary measures can be taken.

Finally, they commit to observe deadlines and keep the Editorial Team of Celestinesca informed about any delay or unforeseen circumstance.

Their decisions must be based on the same ethical and quality criteria that regulate Celestinesca. The journal reserves the right to dissent with the editors and discuss their decisions.

3. Ethical criteria for reviewers

If, despite the double blind system, the reviewer were to recognise the author of the article and this might arise a conflict of interest, the reviewer will inform the journal as soon as possible, so that the necessary measures can be taken

If the reviewer considers that the article is discriminatory or does harm the dignity of any person(s) or group, he/she will inform the journal as soon as possible. The same applies to articles written with potentially damaging intent or which could be used with potentially damaging intent.

If the reviewer suspects that the author might have plagiarised, he/she will inform the journal as soon as possible.

If the reviewer suspects that the article might be deceitful, he/she will inform the journal as soon as possible

For more specific ethical criteria and etiquette rules for reviewers, please check our Review Guidelines (below.)

4. Intervention in cases of conflict

In a case of an ethical conflict, included but not limited to the following situations, the first step will be contacting the journal directly.

4.1 Conflicts of interest

In a case of a conflict of interest that affects any person involved in any of the publication stages of Celestinesca, the Editorial Board and, ultimately, the Director will decide:

• To archive the submission: In a case of a conflict of interest that might question the credibility of the article or of the journal, the submission may be immediately archived.

• To replace the person(s) affected by a case of conflict of interest and replace him/her with another: If the case of a conflict of interest might question the impartiality of the person(s) involved, they may be removed from the submission publication process and be replaced by someone who is not familiar with the situation.

• To continue with the publication process: If the case of a conflict of interest is not considered to question the credibility of the article or of the journal, or the impartiality of the person(s) involved, the publication process may continue as usual.

Should a case of a conflict of interest not have been notified in due time, this will be considered a case of bad academic practice, therefore subject to the measures described in section 4.4: Bad practices.

Should a case of a conflict of interest involve a member (or members) of the Editorial Board, and/or the Director, they will not be involved in making any decisions regarding it.

4.2 Retraction of articles

An article may be retracted by the petition of:

• The author: Authors may ask for the retraction of articles of theirs at any time.

• Third persons: Persons other than the author(s) of an article may ask for its retraction if the article incurs in bad academic practices (see section 4.4). The Editorial Board and, ultimately, the Director will inform the author(s) and offer him/her/them the chance to object, verify the accusations of bad academic practice, and then make a decision.

In both cases, with archival purposes, the journal will keep the metadata regarding the retracted article, but the text will cease being available at the site. In its place, there will be an explanation of the reasons why and when the article has been retracted. The journal cannot be held responsible if the article continues being accessible through other non-official platforms or in cache versions of the site.

4.3 Correcting published articles

An article may be corrected by the petition of:

• The author: Authors may ask to be able to correct an article of theirs at any time. This applies exclusively to errors and not to cosmetic, stylistic, or typographical corrections.

• Third persons: Persons other than the author(s) of an article may ask for its correction. This applies exclusively to errors and not to cosmetic, stylistic, or typographical corrections. In this case, the author of the affected article will be informed, so that he/she can decide about the suitability of introducing the correction. Should the author(s) not agree with the correction, then the Editorial Board and, ultimately, the Director may consider that the correction is necessary, it is up to them to determine if the correction will be included or not.

In both cases, the corrected articles will include an initial note with information about what was corrected, and where and why it was corrected. The journal cannot be held responsible if uncorrected versions of the article continue being accessible through other non-official platforms or in cache versiones of the site.

4.4 Bad academic practices

For the purpose of these criteria, bad academic practices include, but are not limited to:

• Plagiarism, total or partial

• Manipulation or falsification of data, evidence, and results

• Lack of honesty regarding conflicts of interest, previous submissions of the same article to other journals, previous reviews, rights ownership, etc.

• Willingness to discriminate, defame and/or attack the dignity of any person(s) or group

• Willingness to harm or allow others to harm any person(s) or group(s)

Besides rejection or retraction of articles, the journal reserves the right to take other measures against recurring or particularly inadmissible bad academic practices, which may lead to exclusion from any of the activities related to Celestinesca.

Review Ethics

Celestinesca is ruled by the ethical bases of the Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guides for Journal Editors of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). What follows is a selection and adaptation of some fundamental ethical criteria for reviewers.

1. Commitment

Celestinesca resorts to prestigious celestinesque scholars for its peer review process. Their busy schedules do not always allow them to commit to review manuscripts in the allotted time. We expect honesty from our reviewers about their availability for reviewing manuscripts for Celestinesca and that, before committing to the review, they take the following into account:

• Reviewers will accept reviewing manuscripts only if they will be able to complete it in the 4 weeks allotted.

• If, during the 4 weeks allotted for reviewing, reviewers realise that they will not be able to complete the review on time or not at all, they will contact the journal as soon as possible, so that the necessary measures will be taken.

• Reviewers commit to ensuring the anonymity of their reviews. More information in Ensuring an anonymous evaluation.

We recommend reading this Description of the review process before starting the review to start getting familiar with the OJS platform.

2. Review Etiquette

The Editorial Team of Celestinesca conceives reviews as constructive criticisms aimed at making the best of the reviewed articles. Authors have to be able to use the review reports to improve their articles and, at the same time, gain a clear idea of their strengths and weaknesses. Since peer review should be an enriching exchange between colleagues of the same field, the Editorial Team of Celestinesca expects from their reviewers:

• Objectivity

• Constructive criticisms

• Honesty

• Respect, in particular with regard to the tone of the review report

3. Acceptance/Rejection Criteria

Celestinesca publishes original research connected to Celestina (or related works). These articles may deal with its interpretation, historical context, imitations, continuations, translations, stage adaptations, etc. from different points of view: critical, literary, stylistic and linguistic, etc. Quality assessments of the reviewed articles will take the following elements into account:

• Research: Is it a research article? Are academic conventions regarding wording, bibliography, referencing, etc. followed?

• Originality: Does it contribute anything new or original to the field of celestinesque scholarship? If it does not contribute anything new or original, does it contribute a new focus or does it review existing perspectives in a relevant manner?

• Relevance: Is it more or less relevant for the field of celestinesque scholarship? Is it interesting enough to be published?

• Title, abstract and keywords: Are they appropriate and descriptive?

• Structure and style: Is the article well written, well organised and structured, so that readers can understand it?

• Argumentation and conclusions: Are the main ideas of the articles supported in a relevant manner, so that readers can follow the argumentation until the end? Are conclusions clear? Can they be concluded from the previous arguments?

• Methodology: Is there any evidence of a methodology? If there is, is it appropriate? If the methodology is explicitly addressed in the article, is it applied as it is said it will?

• Bibliography: Is it relevant? Is it actual

• References: Is there a dialogue with previous scholarship? Is previous scholarship referenced correctly? Is the author familiar with the referenced scholarship?

We recommend that review reports refer to these aspects. We also recommend that improvement suggestions focus on these aspects.

4. Ethical conflicts

In foresight of the possibility of ethical conflicts arising during the review process, reviewers have to comply with these requirements:

• If, despite the double blind system, the reviewer were to recognise the author of the article and this might arise a conflict of interest, the reviewer will inform the journal as soon as possible, so that the necessary measures can be taken

• If the reviewer considers that the article is discriminatory or does harm the dignity of any person(s) or group, he/she will inform the journal as soon as possible. The same applies to articles written with potentially damaging intent or which could be used with potentially damaging intent.

• If the reviewer suspects that the author might have plagiarised, he/she will inform the journal as soon as possible.

• If the reviewer suspects that the article might be deceitful, he/she will inform the journal as soon as possible

In the case of ethical eventualities that are not included in this list, please contact the journal first.