Editorial Policies

Focus and Scope

Praxis Filosófica is a biannual journal of the Department of Philosophy at the Universidad del Valle (Cali, Colombia. S.A.). Its main objective is to disseminate original writings, advances and research results produced in different areas of philosophy. Since its creation in 1977, Praxis Filosófica offers its pages to the national and international community for the publication of papers, book reviews, critical reviews (not exceeding two years) and interview in Spanish, English, French, German, Portuguese, Italian. The content of the original publication is the sole responsibility of their authors.

Praxis Filosófica is registered in the following databases: National Bibliographic Index of Magazines Publindex of Colombian Scientific and Technological Journals by  COLCIENCIAS,  category A2; Ulrich's International Periodical Directory (RR Bowker, New Jersey, USA); Thephilosopher's Index, Philosophy Documentation Center (USA); Thomson Gale Academic Report (USA); Latindex, Regional Information System for Online Scientific Journals in Latin America; Dialnet, virtual library of Spanish and Latin American scientific journals; and SciELO (ScientificElectronic Library Online); Academic Source Premier - EBSCO; systematically collecting original works published in Praxis Filosófica.

 

 

 

Section Policies

Editorial Note

Unchecked Open Submissions Unchecked Indexed Unchecked Peer Reviewed

Artículos

 

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Translations

Checked Open Submissions Unchecked Indexed Unchecked Peer Reviewed

Reviews

Checked Open Submissions Unchecked Indexed Unchecked Peer Reviewed

Interviews

Checked Open Submissions Unchecked Indexed Unchecked Peer Reviewed
 

Peer Review Process

Editorial Process

1. Reception

 

Praxis Filosófica will read papers in order of arrival. Once the paper is received, the review process will start with a review by the editor. This review will take maximum of one month.

 

The following are exclusion criteria to not accept a document:

  • The subject does not belong to the scientific disciplinary field on the issue of the journal.
  • The paper exceeds the established set length.
  • The paper does not use APA to reference and citation in its sixth edition.
  • The documentation is not complete.
  • The paper is not sending sent in the required written support (word format).
  • There are lagiarism or self-plagiarism problems identified by the Turnitin software.
  • The evaluator peers categorically reject the publication of the paper.
  • The paper has already been published in advance, partially or completely (except in the case of an authorized translation).
  • The paper does not meet the requirements of a research or a philosophical reflection.
  • Does not satisfy intellectual property clausule.
  • Papers that, after making the suggested corrections, continue to present problems in its content (defects in the argumentative structure and syntax errors no respect for the syntax) will be rejected.

 

2. Arbitration

If the paper meets the minimum requirements of reception and is consistent with the theme of the journal, we will send the document to be evaluated; the time required for evaluation might take 1 to 2-3 months.

Praxis Filosófica journal reviews the papers through a "double blind" arbitral process. The Papers will be evaluated by one or two anonymous academic peers who are unfamiliar with the author's identity and, once the results of the evaluation are received, the author will not know the identity of (the) evaluator (s).

The evaluator peer has an evaluation form designed by the editorial team of the journal, which is sent with the letter of request for arbitration and a copy of the paper in PDF format by an anonymous author.

 

3. Dictum

After receiving the evaluation, the editor will review the evaluation with the aim to inform the author if the paper was approved, rejected or approved but with corrections mentioned in the letter of evaluation.Evaluations are designed with the aim of analyzing the argumentative and stylistic structure of the writing; it also enables the author tools to enhance the investigative work and release new perspectives.

The authors should be aware that once the publication of the paper is approved, the editor might include it in the issue (number) he or she considers relevant according to the editorial criteria of the content of the journal. Therefore it is not necessarily published in the next issue immediately.

The Editorial Committee will decide, based on the respective reports, the convenience of publishing the papers received. In a time no more than six months after the original paper is received, the director shall inform the author the final decision and, if this is favorable, the information in which it will be published. If it is necessary, the editor would ask to the author a final version of his/her paper with the corrections mentioned in the evaluation peer’s letter; the delivery of this new revised version does not necessarily imply its publication, and it must be again checked to verify if the writer took into account the comments of the peer reviewers.

 

Open Access Policy

This journal provides immediate open access to its content on the principle that making research freely available to the public supports a greater global exchange of knowledge.

 

Archiving

This journal utilizes the LOCKSS system to create a distributed archiving system among participating libraries and permits those libraries to create permanent archives of the journal for purposes of preservation and restoration. More...

 

Code of Ethics in Praxis Filosófica Journal

CODE OF ETHICS AND BAD EDITORIAL PRACTICES IN

PRAXIS FILOSÓFICA JOURNAL

 

Praxis Filosófica has a code of ethics and bad editorial practices along the lines of COPE and some supporting documents such as those presented by APA, the Guide of good practices for open access journal (2011), and a Manual of good practices in scientific magazine editorial FECYT (2012); Also, we have taken into account the guidelines required by the National System of Indexing and Approval of Specialized Magazines CT + I, Publindex, Colciencias.

 

Praxis Filosófica Journal has these guidelines that, along with the need for the dissemination of academic knowledge, require constant monitoring of the conditions of the journal, committing to maintain their integrity and their history in the field of philosophy, disconnected from any lucrative benefits that may overshadow the work started since 1977 the Department of Philosophy. Finally, guided by values of solidity and reliability in research, honesty, recognition of previous work, originality in the field of research, transparency, accountability, and adherence and respect for the rules of publication and copyright laws, we present you our code of ethics and publishers bad practices.

Editor

 

The editor of Praxis Filosófica is committed to the fullfilment of the journal's internal policies and ethical standards described in this document; he or she is committed to maintain the required and appropriate communication between authors and reviewers. The editor of Praxis Filosófica does not publish its own document in the body of the journal. Finally, he or she is responsible for attending suggestions that readers, reviewers or the general public made about the content of Praxis Filosófica.

 

Specifically, the editor is responsible for:

 

  • Decision-making: the editor has the ability to not accept for review and editorial review papers that do not meet the basic requirements for receiving and publishing. This is according to verifiable criteria of impartiality, taking into account the main objective of the journal.
  • The editor will decide the relevance of the publication of papers based on the structural composition of a given number (whether it be themed or not).
  • Confidentiality: considering Praxis Filosófica uses a "double-blind" arbitration system for the evaluation of papers, the editor is committed to the principle of confidentiality and anonymity of authors and reviewers of the articles. The research results of the authors shall not be used for personal gain or other, unless it has the authorization of the author.
  • Communication: the publisher must inform the authors in a timely and proper way the paper status in the respective editorial process. Similarly, he or she must communicate the evaluators the commitments assumed at the time to accept the arbitration document.
  • Fullfilment: the publisher must ensure fullfilment of internal policies and the editorial policies of Praxis Filosófica Journal, and publication of each edition, printed or digital, at the appropriate time.
  • Attention to criticism and concerns: given that scientific knowledge is built through dialogue and academic discussion with colleagues, the editor will be willing to respond to suggestions and answer the concerns of authors and reviewers with the aim of improving the editorial process.
  • In the case of any mistake, when the number is published, either technical or conceptual, the editor is obliged to publish, after immediately recognizing the error, an erratum where such errors are corrected, pointing exactly the place where it is. This erratum will be printed to the physical version and for the digital version, it will be published through a link to download the document with the error corrected.
  • Detection of bad practices: if it is suspected, by the reviewer, editor or reader a bad practice by the author, the editor is responsible for addressing the issue directly with the authors; if it is not satisfactorily resolved with the authors, the editor must report and discuss what happened with the entity or institution to which the authors have affiliations with the aim of resolving the conflict; this resolution of bad practice should also be made through an erratum. In case of plagiarism the editor considers to be serious, it must be consulted with the Advisory Committee on Intellectual Property of the Universidad del Valle.

The evaluator

 

The role of the evaluator in the editorial process of Praxis Filosófica Journal is of great importance; in the same way that the editor, the evaluator responds with concepts and evaluations, to academic merit and criteria detached from any economic and commercial compensation, besides acting under judgments of objectivity. The evaluator responds ethically by:

 

  • Confidentiality: the evaluator is committed to attend the demand for anonymous review of the paper, which implies the non-disclosure to third parties of the process being done, unless an outside opinion is needed, which must be communicated in advance to the editor to have a proper authorization. In addition, the evaluator must not appropriate the content of unpublished papers for personal benefit except that it has the permission of the author.
  • Disposal of evaluation: upon receiving the letter of request for arbitration, the evaluator must answer in a reasonable time whether to accept or not to perform the evaluation of the paper, abiding to fulfill what is expressed in the letter (presenting a reasoned concept recommending or not the publication considering aspects such as the quality of the writing, presentation of thesis and original ideas, knowledge of the subject, quality of arguments and finally basic and specialized literature management. The submit of  evaluation within a period of 30 days; so if in case of needding more time, the evaluator will notify to the editor. If the evaluator knows beforehand the document has a conflict of interest, he or she must inform it to the editor, who will decide whether its participation in the arbitration process is appropriate or not.
  • Bad practices detected: if the evaluator detects possible bad practices by the authors during the revision of the paper, it must be informed to the editor to proceed as it must be.

The author

 

The authors play a fundamental role in the editing and publication of papers in Praxis Filosófica; they must comply with a conduct based on knowledge and respect for intellectual property rights and transparency of the research presented. The authors respond ethically by:

 

  • Regulatory Compliance: Authors should know and comply with the initial requirements for submission of original papers and the rules on publication of Praxis Filosófica Journal.
  • Honesty, transparency and originality: the authors are required to submit original papers to foster academic discussion, that are result of their research work and to respond to conditions of originality without committing plagiarism.
  • Sponsorship: Authors must inform the journal when an entity sponsor a research project where the paper presented is a result; or should indicate whether it is a partial result of a research project on a doctorate or an academic postgraduate training.
  • Authorship: Authors must inform the journal when the article is presented in co-authorship, and their order of appearance. (according to the grade of participation  in the  research).
  • Citation and references: the authors should be guided by APA citation and reference citation in its sixth Edition. In reference listed at the end of the document must appear only the documents cited in the body of the text. In the case of an article, it must indicate what its DOI identification number is, if it is available.
  • Errors Posted: Authors should inform the editor if they detect errors after papers are published.
  • Arbitration: the authors are obliged to respond to the corrections made by the evaluator peers for an eventual publication of the paper in the journal.

 

 

Bad Editorial Practices

The ethical rules of Praxis Filosófica Journal are important as a guide for authors, evaluators and editor; however, it is also important to mention the practices considered undesirable in the editorial process.

 

Editors and evaluators

 

The following are considered bad editorial practices:

  • The breach of the confidentiality agreement is considered as a bad editorial practice.
  • The use of confidential unpublished material by evaluators or editors for personal gain without recognizing the Intellectual Property Rights is considered bad practice.

The authors

The following are considered as bad ethical practices by the authors:

 

  • Falsification of documents submitted to the journal.
  • Sending the papers to two journal or mass media simultaneously. The author must meet an exclusivity agreement with Praxis Filosófica.
  • The presentation of a paper that has already been published in other media, whether printed or electronic, including Scrib or Academia.edu pages. Authors should meet an exclusivity agreement where it is certified that the paper is unpublished.
  • The plagiarism and self-plagiarism is considered a bad practice; it can also be penalized by the Law of Copyright and Intellectual Property.