ROTURA is governed by principles of integrity, transparency, and ethical responsibility in the scientific publishing process, applicable to authors, editors, reviewers, and the editorial team.

1. Editors

Publication decision

The editor is responsible for the final decision to accept or reject submitted articles based on editorial policies, reviewers’ recommendations, and, when necessary, legal grounds (e.g., plagiarism or copyright infringement).

Manuscript evaluation

All manuscripts are initially checked for originality, fit to the journal’s scope, and compliance with formatting and citation rules as per the Editorial Standards. Only manuscripts meeting these minimum criteria proceed to double-blind peer review by at least two external specialized evaluators.

Impartial evaluation

Articles are evaluated solely on academic merit, regardless of authors’ identity (including gender, sexual orientation, ethnicity, nationality, institutional affiliation, religion, or political views).

Confidentiality

The editor and editorial team commit not to disclose any information about submitted manuscripts except to persons directly involved in the editorial process (authors, reviewers, assistant editors).

2. Reviewers

Contribution to editorial decisions

Reviewers contribute to editorial decisions and, when necessary, to manuscript improvement by providing objective, constructive, and well-founded comments.

Confidentiality

All manuscript content received for review is confidential and must not be shared with third parties without editor authorization.

Objectivity and integrity

Reviews must be objective, based on academic and scientific criteria, and free from personal criticism.

Recognition of sources

Reviewers should identify relevant references not cited by the authors.

3. Authors

Presentation standards

Authors must provide an accurate description of the work conducted, objectively discussing its relevance. Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant intellectual contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the reported study. All listed authors should have approved the final version of the manuscript and agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work.

Data access and preservation

Authors must retain and make available data supporting the article upon editorial request during and after the review process.

Originality and plagiarism

Authors guarantee the manuscript is original and all sources are properly cited. Plagiarism, including self-plagiarism, is a serious ethical violation. Submitted articles are checked using electronic tools (Turnitin and Dupli Checker). Detected plagiarism or improper use of copyrighted material may lead to corrective actions including errata, article withdrawal, institutional notification, or legal measures.

Self-plagiarism and self-citation

Authors should be aware of the issue of self-plagiarism and the reuse of content previously published by the same author. This practice may be acceptable in specific contexts, provided that it is limited, clearly identified, and properly contextualised, and does not mislead readers regarding the level of originality of the manuscript. Situations such as methodological descriptions or technical elements may justify some degree of reuse, provided that transparency is ensured and, where appropriate, the original source is properly indicated.

The assessment of text recycling should be carried out on a case-by-case basis, distinguishing between acceptable practices of reuse (transparent, limited, and justified) and unacceptable practices (extensive, unreferenced, or potentially misleading regarding the novelty of the work). Where there is significant overlap with previous publications, authors must ensure full transparency and, when necessary, obtain editorial approval.

Authors should also be aware of the practice of self-citation. While referencing one’s own work is legitimate and often necessary, excessive self-citation with the aim of inflating impact metrics is not considered an ethically appropriate practice.

Funding and collaboration acknowledgment

Authors must disclose all funding sources and acknowledge contributors properly in the designated submission fields, respecting the anonymity of the double-blind review process.

Errors in published works

• Corrections, when the errors do not compromise the scientific validity of the work;
• Retractions, when the results are invalid due to misconduct, serious error, duplication, plagiarism, or ethical violations.

Conflicts of Interest

All participants in the editorial process (authors, editors, and reviewers) must declare any conflict of interest that may influence the evaluation, interpretation, or publication of manuscripts.

• Authors must declare conflicts of interest at the time of submission.
• Reviewers must decline to evaluate manuscripts when a conflict of interest exists.
• Editors must refrain from making editorial decisions on manuscripts in which they have a conflict of interest, delegating the process to another editor.

Editorial note on the use of Artificial Intelligence (AI)

1. Use of AI in article writing

The Editorial Board of ROTURA recommends that:

• The use of AI should always be declared transparently, for example in the acknowledgments section or in a footnote, indicating the tool used and the nature of the assistance provided.
• AI should never be considered a co-author under any circumstances.

The use of AI does not exempt authors from full responsibility for the content, including its originality, accuracy, and compliance with ethical standards and academic integrity.

2. Use of the journal’s content for AI training

Articles published in ROTURA aim to promote open access to knowledge and foster critical debate. However, their use for training or feeding AI models may entail risks, such as unauthorized reproduction, contextual distortion, or improper use beyond the academic sphere.

For this reason:

• ROTURA does not authorize the systematic or automated use of its content for AI training purposes without prior and explicit consent.
• Any entity or researcher wishing to use the journal’s content for this purpose must formally request permission, respecting citation standards, integrity, and proper attribution.

3. Use of AI in the peer review process

In the context of the peer review process, including double-blind review, the use of artificial intelligence tools to analyse, interpret, or provide opinions on submitted manuscripts is not permitted. Scientific evaluation requires intellectual responsibility, critical judgement, and confidentiality, these being inherent functions of the reviewer’s role and not delegable to automated systems.

Reviewers must also ensure that they do not input significant parts of the manuscript into external AI systems, in order to preserve the confidentiality of the editorial process and of the submitted content.
Whenever AI tools are used in an auxiliary capacity (for example, linguistic support or organisation of review notes), such use must be limited, must not compromise manuscript confidentiality, and must not replace the reviewer’s critical analysis.

The final responsibility for the review report, recommendations, and editorial decision must always be human and individually assumed by the reviewer.

4. Use of AI in the editorial process

Within the editorial process, editors may use artificial intelligence tools solely as operational support, in particular for tasks such as organisation, text standardisation, language checking, or administrative management of the editorial workflow.

The use of AI systems to replace editorial evaluation, scientific decision-making, or the assessment of manuscript quality is not permitted; these responsibilities must remain exclusively human.

Editors must ensure that any use of AI does not compromise the confidentiality of submitted manuscripts, avoiding the input of unpublished content into external systems without appropriate safeguards.

The final decision regarding acceptance, rejection, or revision of manuscripts must always be made by human editors, who assume full intellectual and editorial responsibility for the entire process.