Publication Ethics

Commitment to academic integrity

The Interdisciplinary Journal of Theology is committed to upholding the highest standards of integrity in academic publishing. Our editorial practice is guided by the principles of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), the leading international reference for ethics in scholarly publishing.

All parties involved in the editorial process—authors, editors, and reviewers—share the responsibility of ensuring intellectual honesty, transparency, and respect for the work of others.

This page constitutes the journal’s Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement and sets out the criteria for preventing, identifying, and addressing potential misconduct before and after publication.

Author responsibilities

Authors who submit manuscripts to the journal undertake the following commitments:

Originality: manuscripts must be original works. All sources used must be properly cited and referenced.
Proper attribution: ideas, data, and formulations drawn from other authors must be explicitly acknowledged. Plagiarism in any form is unacceptable.
Legitimate authorship: only those who have made a substantive intellectual contribution to the work should be listed as authors. All persons who have contributed significantly must be included.
Conflict of interest disclosure: authors must report any financial, institutional, or personal relationship that could influence the results or interpretation of the manuscript.
Exclusive submission: manuscripts must not have been previously published or be simultaneously under review by another publication.
Accuracy of data: authors are responsible for the accuracy of the data presented and the faithful representation of their sources.

Editorial team responsibilities

The editor and the editorial board are committed to:

Fair evaluation: manuscripts are evaluated solely on their academic merit, without discrimination based on gender, sexual orientation, ethnicity, nationality, religious affiliation, or ideological position of the authors.
Confidentiality: information regarding submitted manuscripts is treated as confidential and is not shared with parties outside the editorial process.
Conflict of interest: the editor refrains from participating in the evaluation of manuscripts with respect to which a conflict of interest exists, delegating the decision to another member of the editorial team.
Editorial independence: publication decisions are based on the quality and academic relevance of the works, free from commercial, institutional, or any other undue influence.
Timely response: the editorial team is committed to maintaining reasonable timeframes at every stage of the process and to communicating decisions clearly.

Reviewer responsibilities

External reviewers participating in the peer review process undertake the following commitments:

Confidentiality: manuscripts received for evaluation are confidential documents. They must not be shared, discussed, or used for personal benefit.
Objectivity: evaluations must be constructive, well-founded, and free from personal judgments about the authors. Critical observations should be accompanied by clear arguments.
Timeliness: reviewers must respect agreed-upon deadlines. If unable to complete the evaluation on time, they should notify the editor as promptly as possible.
Conflict of interest: when a reviewer identifies a conflict of interest regarding an assigned manuscript, they must inform the editor and recuse themselves from the evaluation.

Plagiarism screening and originality

All received manuscripts undergo an originality verification process prior to peer review. This process combines editorial review —including consultation of academic databases such as Google Scholar, Dialnet, Redalyc, and institutional repositories— with Crossref Similarity Check, a service based on iThenticate for text-similarity screening and plagiarism prevention. Manuscripts showing significant unattributed similarities with previously published works will be returned to the author for correction or rejected, depending on the severity of the case. This policy also applies to self-plagiarism. The journal follows the guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) in these matters.

Misconduct and integrity of the scholarly record

In addition to the plagiarism and self-plagiarism addressed in the preceding section, the journal considers duplicate publication, inappropriate authorship, citation manipulation, and data falsification or fabrication to be forms of misconduct. References must not be included, omitted, or required for the purpose of manipulating metrics. Editors and reviewers may suggest citations only for justified scholarly reasons and must never make a decision conditional on citing the journal, their own work, or the work of third parties.

Substantiated allegations may be sent to rit@sitb.edu.ar. They will be examined confidentially, the parties involved will be given an opportunity to respond, and anyone with a conflict of interest will take no part in resolving the matter. The journal will follow COPE guidance and, as appropriate, may reject the manuscript, apply the measures set out in the retraction and corrections policy, or refer the matter to the relevant institution.

Use of artificial intelligence

Artificial intelligence may not be listed as an author or co-author, nor may it be used to substantiate scholarly claims. It may not be used to produce the manuscript's original contribution on its own or to carry out the research in place of its authors. Authorship and intellectual contribution must be exclusively human. AI tools may not replace the intellectual direction, critical judgment, or responsibility of the authors. The framing of the research problem, methodological decisions, argument, interpretations, and conclusions must constitute the authors' own intellectual contribution. Responses generated by AI do not replace consulting and citing original sources and may not be invoked as scholarly authority. Any information or reference obtained with the assistance of AI must be verified. The authors are responsible for the originality, accuracy, and integrity of the manuscript and may not use AI to fabricate, falsify, or deceptively manipulate sources, data, or results.

The journal permits the responsible use of AI tools to correct spelling or grammar, improve readability, organize references, edit for style, or format the manuscript, provided that such use does not introduce content or alter the argument. Any use that goes beyond straightforward correction, editing, or formatting must be disclosed when the manuscript is submitted, identifying the tool, purpose, and scope. When AI forms part of the research method or its responses are themselves the object of study, its use must be described in sufficient detail to allow for evaluation and, where appropriate, reproducibility. The journal will assess the compatibility of the disclosed use with these principles and the journal's research integrity policies. If the work is published, the disclosure will be included in the article. In all cases, personal data, confidential materials, and third-party rights must be protected.

Ethical oversight of research

Manuscripts reporting research involving human participants—including interviews, testimonies, surveys, or observations—must state, where applicable, that approval was obtained from the relevant ethics committee or authority, that free and informed consent was obtained, and what measures were taken to protect the dignity, privacy, and confidentiality of the individuals and communities involved. Where formal ethical review is not applicable, authors must explain why and demonstrate compliance with the relevant institutional, legal, and professional standards. Research involving animals must state compliance with applicable standards and the corresponding approval where required.

Retraction and corrections policy

The journal has the following mechanisms in place for addressing errors or misconduct detected after publication:

Erratum: when minor errors that do not affect the work's conclusions are identified, a correction notice linked to the original article will be published.
Retraction: in cases of proven academic misconduct (plagiarism, data fabrication or falsification, duplicate publication), the article will be formally retracted. The retraction will be published prominently, stating the reasons, and the original article will remain accessible with a clear retraction notice.
Expression of concern: when there are substantiated suspicions of misconduct but the investigation has not yet concluded, the editor may publish an expression of concern linked to the article.

In all cases, decisions will be made following COPE guidelines and communicated to the parties involved.

Post-publication discussion

The journal welcomes substantiated scholarly comments on published works through rit@sitb.edu.ar. Following a preliminary editorial assessment, the comment will be shared with the authors and, where it contributes to the scholarly record, the journal may publish a comment, response, or notice linked to the original work. Communications identifying errors or possible misconduct will be handled under the journal’s policies on corrections, retractions, and integrity of the scholarly record.

Conflict of interest

The journal defines a conflict of interest as any situation in which a participant in the editorial process—author, editor, or reviewer—has relationships or interests that could unduly influence their judgment. All participants are responsible for disclosing any potential conflict of interest. The editorial team will assess each situation and take appropriate measures to safeguard the integrity of the process.

Complaints and appeals

Any person may submit a substantiated complaint concerning the editorial process, the conduct of its participants, or the application of the journal’s policies by writing to rit@sitb.edu.ar. Complaints will be handled confidentially and will receive a reasoned response. If a complaint concerns the editor, it will be examined by the director or another member of the editorial team who has no conflict of interest.

Authors who believe that the editorial decision on their manuscript does not adequately reflect the evaluation received may submit a substantiated appeal within 30 days of the decision notification. The editorial team will assess the arguments and, if appropriate, may commission an additional review by a new reviewer. The resulting decision will be communicated in writing and will be final.

Research data

Research data are materials produced or gathered during a study that enable readers to understand, verify, or reuse its results. In theology, the humanities, and the social sciences, they may include, for example, interviews, surveys, transcripts, documentary corpora, research instruments, tables, analysis records, images, digitized archival materials, or databases created for the research.

This policy applies only when a work has produced or gathered materials of this kind, or has used a non-public dataset. It does not apply to theoretical or bibliographic works, reviews, or studies based solely on books, articles, documents, or other previously published sources. In these cases, authors are not required to provide any additional statement.

When the policy applies, authors must briefly indicate where the data can be consulted. If they are publicly available, authors are encouraged to deposit them in an institutional, disciplinary, or generalist repository and provide a link. If the data cannot be shared for ethical, legal, pastoral, confidentiality, privacy, or third-party rights reasons, a brief explanation is sufficient. A duly justified restriction does not in itself prevent the work from being reviewed or published.

The journal does not ordinarily require data files to be attached to the submission. However, the editorial team may request additional information or, where possible, restricted access during review in order to verify the scholarly traceability of the research.

Argentine Law 26,899

Argentine Law 26,899 does not apply to all authors. In general terms, it applies to research funded wholly or partly by public funds and conducted within public bodies or institutions belonging to the Argentine National System of Science, Technology and Innovation. In these cases, the law requires scientific and technological outputs and primary data to be deposited in institutional open-access repositories, in accordance with the applicable time limits, exceptions, and institutional policies. Authors who do not fall within this category are not required to take any action under this law. The official text of Argentine Law 26,899 is available online.