The Revista de Filosofía UCSC examines complaints and appeals concerning its decisions, editorial procedures and published content, and the conduct of those who take part in them. Submissions will be handled with impartiality, confidentiality and independence, and with respect for the right of the persons involved to know the relevant concerns and to respond to them.

Corrections, expressions of concern and retractions are intended to preserve the accuracy and integrity of the scholarly record. They are not sanctions against authors and may not be used to settle personal disputes or to punish conduct that does not affect the publication.

Submission of complaints and appeals

Complaints and appeals should be sent to revistadefilosofia@ucsc.cl. The communication should identify the manuscript, publication, decision or action in question; describe the facts clearly; include the available supporting information; and, where appropriate, state the remedy sought.

The journal may examine anonymous communications when they provide sufficient information and evidence for a responsible assessment. The absence of identification of the person submitting the complaint will not prevent it from being processed, but may limit the possibility of verifying the facts or communicating the outcome.

Receipt will be acknowledged within five working days. Admissibility and the applicable procedure will, as a general rule, be determined within fifteen working days of receipt. Submissions that are manifestly unfounded, imprecise, outside the journal’s remit, or repetitive without providing new information may be dismissed with a reasoned response.

Handling and independence

The Editor-in-Chief is responsible for coordinating the handling of complaints and appeals. When an appeal concerns a decision in which the Editor-in-Chief was involved, it will be examined by an Associate Editor who did not take part in that decision and has no conflict of interest or, if no Associate Editor meets these conditions, by a member of the Editorial Board from outside UCSC.

Allegations of possible ethical misconduct will be examined by the Editor-in-Chief together with a member of the Editorial Board who has no conflict of interest. When a complaint or allegation involves the Editor-in-Chief or an Associate Editor, the examination will be conducted by two members of the Editorial Board from outside UCSC who have no conflict of interest. When it involves a member of the Editorial Board, that member will be excluded from its examination. If a sufficiently independent body cannot be constituted, external specialists with no conflict of interest will be asked to take part. No person may decide a complaint or appeal concerning a decision in which they were directly involved.

The journal may request information from the parties, consult independent specialists and seek information from the relevant institutions. The persons whose conduct is questioned will be informed of the substantive aspects of the submission and will have fifteen working days to respond before a decision is taken, unless doing so could compromise an investigation, the safety of any person or a legal obligation. The identity of the person making an allegation will remain confidential throughout the procedure, unless that person expressly consents to its disclosure or disclosure is required by law.

Information will be shared only with those who must take part in the procedure. Confidentiality will not prevent the journal from consulting the University, other journals, institutions of affiliation or competent authorities when necessary to clarify the facts or to protect the integrity of the process.

The journal will endeavour to resolve appeals within thirty working days of their admission and to conclude complaints and investigations within sixty working days. When the complexity of a case requires more time, it will inform the parties of the reasons and of the expected date of resolution.

Appeals against editorial decisions

Authors may appeal an editorial decision when they consider that there was a substantive procedural error, that relevant information was not taken into account, or that the manuscript or the reports were manifestly misinterpreted. Mere disagreement with the decision or with the reviewers’ academic judgement is not sufficient grounds for an appeal.

Appeals must be reasoned and submitted within thirty calendar days of notification of the decision. New versions of the manuscript should not be attached unless expressly requested.

The person examining the appeal may consult the editorial records and request a further expert opinion. On that basis, they may either confirm the contested decision, giving reasons, or set it aside and order the editorial process to be reopened. Only one appeal per decision will be accepted, and submitting an appeal does not guarantee that the decision will be changed.

Allegations of serious misconduct

Allegations of harassment, violence, discrimination, abuse of authority or other serious misconduct will be examined within the journal’s remit when there is verifiable evidence and a reasonable connection with:

1. the reliability or ethical soundness of a contribution;
2. the integrity of the review process or of the editorial decision;
3. the truthfulness of the authorship, affiliation or declarations submitted;
4. the existence of undisclosed conflicts of interest; or
5. the safety of those taking part in the journal’s activities or processes.

The journal does not determine criminal or disciplinary liability, nor does it make general assessments of the moral conduct of authors. The existence of an allegation, accusation, pending investigation or public controversy does not in itself establish responsibility and is not an automatic ground for rejection or retraction.

When necessary, the journal may verify the status of institutional or judicial proceedings, request information from the parties and activate the relevant University protocols. It may also adopt preventive and proportionate measures within its own processes, such as the recusal, reassignment or temporary suspension of a person from editorial, reviewing or representative functions. These measures do not constitute a finding of responsibility and must be reviewed when the circumstances that justified them change.

A published contribution will be subject to correction, expression of concern or retraction only when the alleged facts directly affect its reliability, its ethical soundness or the integrity of the procedure by which it was accepted. Conduct unrelated to the publication does not in itself justify altering the scholarly record.

Review of published content

Anyone may report errors or possible breaches concerning a published contribution, and authors may request the correction or retraction of their own work when they become aware of an error affecting it. The journal will conduct a preliminary assessment and, when there are sufficient grounds, will open an investigation in accordance with the procedure set out in this policy.

Philosophical, interpretive or methodological disagreements do not in themselves constitute editorial errors. They may give rise to responses, discussions or new scholarly contributions, but not to changes to the published text, unless false information, incorrect references, substantial misrepresentations or other breaches of integrity are demonstrated.

Depending on the nature and seriousness of the problem, the journal may publish a correction, an expression of concern or a retraction and, exceptionally, remove content.

The decision to publish a substantive correction, an expression of concern, a retraction or a removal notice rests with the Editor-in-Chief or, when the Editor-in-Chief has a conflict of interest, with the person who acts as substitute in accordance with the Publication Ethics policy. The measure may be adopted even if the authors do not agree, provided that there is sufficient evidence and due process has been respected.

Correction

A correction will be published when a relevant error or omission is identified that does not invalidate the argument or the contribution as a whole. The notice will clearly describe the error and the correction made, state whether it is published at the request of the authors or on the journal’s initiative, and remain linked to the original publication.

Purely typographical, spelling or presentation errors that do not alter the meaning may be corrected directly, with a record kept in the journal’s internal editorial log. When a change may affect the interpretation, citation or identification of the text, it will be recorded publicly.

Expression of concern

An expression of concern may be published when there are serious and well-founded doubts about the integrity or reliability of a contribution but the available evidence does not yet allow a final decision; when an investigation is under way whose results may take considerable time; or when the competent institution is unable to conduct an adequate investigation.

An expression of concern is neither a retraction nor a finding of responsibility. It must state the reasons that justify it and will be updated or replaced by a correction, a retraction or a closing notice when conclusive evidence is obtained.

No expression of concern will be published on the basis of accusations or personal conduct lacking a demonstrable connection with the integrity of the contribution.

Retraction

A contribution may be retracted when there is conclusive evidence that its content is unreliable or that its publication resulted from a substantive breach. Possible grounds include:

1. fundamental errors that invalidate the work;
2. fabrication, falsification or manipulation of sources, data or materials;
3. substantial plagiarism or redundant publication;
4. research conducted without the required ethical approvals;
5. fraudulent authorship, identity or documentation;
6. serious copyright infringement;
7. manipulated or compromised peer review; or
8. conflicts of interest whose concealment substantially affected the review or the editorial decision.

An author’s refusal to cooperate will not prevent retraction when there is sufficient evidence.

The retraction notice will clearly identify the contribution concerned, the reasons and who is taking the measure. Objective language will be used and, where possible, honest errors will be distinguished from conduct contrary to integrity.

The retracted contribution will remain accessible, visibly identified as such and linked to the corresponding notice. Its DOI, page and metadata will be preserved to maintain the traceability of the scholarly record.

Exceptional removal of content

Removal of the full text will take place only exceptionally, when it is required by a court order or a legal obligation; when the content is manifestly unlawful; when it seriously infringes the privacy or confidentiality of a person; or when its continued availability creates a serious and demonstrable risk that cannot be remedied by a correction or retraction.

In such cases, the publication page and a notice explaining the removal will be retained, unless a legal obligation prevents this information from being provided. The journal will not make silent deletions from the published record.

Decision and communication

Decisions will be taken on the basis of the available evidence and communicated in writing to the persons directly involved. When a public measure is warranted, the authors will be informed before it is published, unless there is an urgent need to protect third parties or to preserve the integrity of the scholarly record.

The journal may communicate information to institutions of affiliation or other authorities when there are sufficient indications of a breach requiring institutional investigation. The mere submission of an allegation will not justify such communication.

Proceedings and decisions will be documented and kept confidential. Complaints made in good faith will not give rise to retaliation, even if they are ultimately not upheld.

This policy is based on the COPE guidelines on retractions and on expressions of concern, and on the Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing.