Code of Ethics

The Revista de Arqueología Histórica Argentina y Latinoamericana (RDAHAYL) is a peer-reviewed publication committed to ensuring the highest standards of editorial ethics. All parties involved in the publication process (authors, reviewers, and editors) must agree to the standards of ethical behavior. The following Statement of Publishing Ethics and Malpractice is based on the Committee on Publication Ethics - COPE - Best Practice and Guidance based on the Core practices for Journal Editors (see http://publicationethics.org).

Responsibilities of the editors and the editorial board of the RDAHAYL 

The editorial board of RDAHAYL and the invited editors are responsible for deciding on the suitability of the content to be published in the journal. This policy is based on the section: "Guidelines for Authors" (available at https://rdahayl.org/index.php/rdahayl/about/submissions), where legal requirements related to defamation are also taken into account, copyright infringement and plagiarism/self-plagiarism. The editorial committee will provide support and guidance to guest editors, authors and reviewers on what is expected of them, as well as monitoring the editorial processes. The editors of RDAHAYL will issue corrections, clarifications, retractions and apologies if necessary.

The evaluation of the manuscripts will be made exclusively based on their academic and intellectual merit, without taking into account age, gender, sexual orientation, disability, ethnic origin, religious beliefs, citizenship, political orientation, or social class of the author or authors. In this sense, the editorial committee is responsible for ensuring an adequate selection of reviewers and a fair and impartial double-blind peer review of each manuscript, keeping all related information confidential during the editorial process, including the protection of authors and reviewers. Finally, the editorial committee will ensure that unpublished materials and information disclosed through a submitted manuscript are not used in an editor's own research without a express written consent of the author. In cases of suspected misconduct, the editorial board and guest editors should follow the COPE flowcharts (available at: http://publicationethics.org/files/Full%20set%20of%20flowcharts.pdf).

Responsibilities of the Guest Editor

Guest editors are responsible for defining the sub disciplinary area that the dossier will deal with, as well as providing clear guidelines to authors and ensuring, in collaboration with the editorial committee, that the right reviewers are selected for all planned content. Other responsibilities include establishing a realistic schedule for the submission of draft content (articles, reports, notes, etc.); provide a list of qualified professionals for the peer review process; review the final drafts together with the  editorial committee and ensure that the established deadlines are met, in addition to publishing the dossier.

Authors' responsibilities 

On the other hand, in the case of co-authorship, the first author must ensure that all co-authors are properly included in the list of authors of the manuscript and that there is full consensus among them in order to approve both the final version of the article and of your submission for publication. In the event that an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in his own published work, it is the obligation of the first author to immediately notify the journal editors and cooperate with them in correcting the manuscript. Lastly, authors must report conflicts of interest or other conflicts that may influence the results or interpretation of their manuscript.

Reviewer Responsibilities 

Peer review helps the guest editor and the RDAHAYL editorial board to make appropriate editorial decisions, collaborating with the authors to improve the manuscript. In case of conflict of interest, little availability of time or lack of experience in the topic to be evaluated, the reviewer must immediately notify the editorial committee of the reason why he/she will not be able to carry out the review, ideally providing a list with alternative reviewers. 

In the event that the reviewers detect an infringement of copyright, plagiarism and/or self-plagiarism by the author, they must report this to the editor responsible for the RDAHAYL. In the event that the reviewers detect an infringement of copyright, plagiarism and/or self-plagiarism by the author, they must report this point to the assigned RDAHAYL editor.

Finally, reviewers must evaluate manuscripts based on scientific content regardless of the authors' age, gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, disability, religious beliefs, citizenship, political orientation, or social class. In this sense, the expected reviews must be carried out objectively and the comments must be clearly formulated with supporting arguments, with the aim of providing a guide to the authors to improve the submitted manuscript.