About the Journal

 

PEER REVIEW PROCESS

Original articles, review articles and short articles sections will always be submitted to the double-blind peer review process. In case of differences of criteria between the selected referees, the work will be submitted to the opinion of a third expert who will decide whether or not to publish the work in question. In all cases, the identity of the referees and authors will be kept confidential in order to avoid conflicts of interest in the verdict. The decision taken in the revision process by the editor be unappealable.

The referees may recommend to the Editorial Committee that the article be:

• Accept shipment
• Publishable with modifications
• Re-evaluated
• Not Publishable

Publication of contributions in other sections will be at the discretion of the Editorial Committee.

 

Review Policy

The review policy is the guide that explains how the Editorial Board of the Revista Cubana de Ciencias Informáticas carries out the evaluation process of the scientific contributions it receives.

 

Editorial evaluation

The first review is carried out by the Editor and/or associate editors; it has a maximum of 5 days. Some of the criteria considered are:

1. The relation of the content of the article with the topics of the journal.
2. The structure of the article according to the rules for the presentation of articles required by the journal.
3. Adequate technical vocabulary.
4. General aspects of the novelty of the work.
5. Adequate structure of the abstract, key words, conclusions and sufficiency of the bibliographical references in accordance with the standard required by the journal.

According to the result of this evaluation, three possible decisions are made:

• Decision 1: Reject in case of non-compliance with points 1, 2, 4 and 5.
• Decision 2: Make editorial changes in form and presentation.  The author will have one week to make and submit the corrected article.
• Decision 3: Accept it without modifications, in this case the article is ready to be submitted for academic evaluation.

Each of the decisions will be managed and informed by the Executive Editor of the journal to the authors, associate editors and referees, as appropriate in each case.

 

ACADEMIC EVALUATION

It is based on the double-blind peer review system and in strict anonymity. Two referees are used for this process and in case of contradiction in the decision of the referees, the article will be evaluated by a third one.

 

Selection of referees

The Revista Cubana de Ciencias Informáticas has a database of national and international referees, classified by academic category, distributed by disciplinary areas and institutions, in this way the Editorial Board of our journal guarantees that the referees are external to the publishing entity and to the entity of the authors who send their contributions.

 

Academic review time

The article can be evaluated up to a maximum of 3 times, depending on the complexity of the changes and the referees' suggestions. In a first academic review, the referees will make and deliver a first opinion in a maximum period of 4 weeks. If necessary, a second and third academic review will be carried out and delivered within a maximum period of 2 weeks for each case.

 

ACADEMIC REVIEW DECISIONS:

Referees can make three types of decisions:

Decision 1. Accept the article without modification.

Each decision will be managed and reported by the Editor-in-Chief of the journal to the authors, referees and editorial and implementation committee, as appropriate in each case.

Decision 2. Publishable with modifications. For their part, changes have been classified into minimal changes and moderate changes.

• Minimal changes:

1. Order bibliographic references alphabetically.
2. Coherent wording of some section(s)
3. Appropriate keywords.
4. Titles of tables and figures.

In this case, the author will have 2 weeks to correct and submit the article; if the article is revised a second time, the author will have 1 week to submit the corrected article.

• Moderate changes:

1. Clarify materials and methods.
2. Reorganize the structure of the article.
3. Redo introduction (clarify novelty/importance and contribution).
4. Synthesize results.
5. Improve tables and figures.

In this case the author will have 3 weeks to correct and deliver the article; in case the article is revised for the second time, the author will have 1 week to deliver the corrected article.

 

Decision 3. Re-evaluable. It is when the changes are complex.

1. Clarify correspondence between: introduction, materials and methods, results and conclusions.
2. Improve discussion of the results.
3. To better expose the results in accordance with the stated objectives.
4. To carry out further experimentation to support the results.
5. To update the references.
6. Clarify materials and methods in correspondence with the results obtained

In this case, the author will have 4 weeks to correct and submit the article; if the article is revised a second time, the author will have one week to submit the corrected article.

 

Decision 4. Unpublishable and reject the work, in case:

1. It does not constitute a new scientific contribution.
2. It is proven to be plagiarism.
3. There is no correspondence between the objective of the research, the methods used and the results obtained.
4. Insufficient results and analysis are presented in the article.

The references are not current, are not in accordance with the standard designated by the journal, are not correctly dimensioned, are not sufficient and are not from reliable sources.

 

Final evaluation

It is performed after the article has been edited and processed by the editorial and production committee. The article is sent to the author so that he/she notifies the editor of the journal of his/her agreement to publish it within a maximum period of 5 days. The author may only make minor changes in grammar and wording. In case the author exceeds the established time, the article will be postponed for publication in subsequent editions of the Revista Cubana de Ciencias Informáticas

 

Rejection of the article

In the case of rejection of the scientific article, the editor will inform the author, who may submit a complaint within 72 hours, to which the editor will respond within a maximum period of 5 days.

OPEN ACCESS POLICY

The RCCI, following the Budapest Open Access Initiative , declares itself as an open access scientific and academic journal , and allows readers and authors to read and publish manuscripts, respectively, free of charge, to increase visibility, impact and access to its contents.

Free, immediate and free access to RCCI content is carried out under the principle that making research freely available to the public encourages greater exchange of global knowledge.

The University of Computer Sciences (UCI), under the Ediciones Futuro publishing label , publishes the contents of the Cuban Journal of Computer Sciences (RCCI) under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license (CC BY 4.0) . This license allows others to distribute, remix, adjust, and build upon your work, even for commercial purposes, as long as you are credited with authorship of the original creation.

ARCHIVING

The RCCI, in order to increase the accessibility of its contents over time, uses the CLOCKSS system through its space in the SciELO.org platform to create a distributed archive among the participating libraries, allowing these libraries to create permanent archives of the journal for the purpose of long-term preservation and restoration of the materials. More information...

STATEMENT OF ETHICS

The Revista Cubana de Ciencias Informáticas (RCCI) is committed to maintaining high standards through rigorous peer review along with strict ethical policies. Any violation of professional codes of ethics, such as plagiarism, fraudulent use of data or false claims of authorship, is taken very seriously by the editors.

RCCI follows the Code of Conduct of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), and follows the COPE flow charts for resolving cases of suspected misconduct.

Authors wishing to publish in the RCCI must meet the criteria of the international standard for authors.

Papers submitted for publication must be original and must not have been previously published (in print or electronic form). Likewise, the papers should not be under another publication process and should not be submitted for such purposes during the evaluation process of this journal, as well as other terms expressed in it.

CODE OF CONDUCT

The purpose of this Code is to establish the fundamental principles of the editorial process, the selection, editing and publication of the contents commissioned or assigned by the authors and the agreement or sponsorship of their representatives.

This Code shall apply to all publications and content edited and published by Ediciones Futuro and to those who hold the status of authors, referees and editors. Failure to comply with its paragraphs will compromise their integrity with the Publisher.

The good practices promoted by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) are assumed.

Fundamental principles of the evaluation process:

1. Authorship: is limited to those who have contributed substantially to the conception, design, execution or interpretation of the research. All those who have contributed in this way should be listed as co-authors.
2. Double blind refereeing: the referee does not know the author of the article, nor does the author know the referee who evaluates his work, the articles are submitted to the consideration of two specialists knowledgeable in the subject to seek a consensus as to the acceptance or rejection of the material presented. When the two specialists differ in their criteria, the judgment of a third party is sought in order to reach a final verdict. The arbitrators shall be independent of each other.
3. Confidentiality: obliges all participants in the arbitration process to maintain strict confidentiality of everything that comes to their knowledge in the course of the arbitration. Any document submitted to the Publisher for possible publication shall be kept confidential by all those involved in the arbitration process.
4. Transparency: obliges the members of the editorial board to be transparent about the evaluation process.
5. Promptness: it requires compliance with the deadlines established in the procedures for acceptance, arbitration and publication of the contributions submitted. Speed is not incompatible with the time required to reach a fair decision.
6. Acknowledgment: it is obligatory to outline the sources contributing to the results, personal and institutional, public or private, projects, investors or other sources of financing, or other sources, provided that they have been influential in the results presented.

Section A: Obligations of Authors

1. All contributions submitted for publication must be unpublished. Authors must avoid any form of plagiarism, conscious or unconscious, including self-plagiarism. If this inappropriate practice is detected, the document will be immediately withdrawn and the sources involved will be notified. Subsequently, papers will not be accepted from authors who have violated this criterion.
2. The author should not send the manuscript simultaneously to more than one journal or other publication medium. If this inappropriate practice is detected, the procedure will be similar to the previous point.
3. Contributions submitted must comply with the editorial and style standards requested by the publications.
4. All work should clearly indicate the sources from which it is drawn. Information obtained personally (unpublished lectures, classes, conversations and/or unpublished interviews, etc.) and used by the author(s).
5. Fragmentation or division of texts by the authors is prohibited. All texts must be presented in their complete version in order to avoid the reproduction of unjustified publications.
6. The author or authors of the text should only appear in the heading of the text, those who actually participated in the preparation of the text in a decisive manner. Any text that is based on the collection of quotations without argumentation and that is presented as an original and unpublished work will be rejected by the Editorial Board.
7. Authors should faithfully report the contribution made in the paper submitted for possible publication. They should also explicitly acknowledge the contribution of authors and co-authors in previous publications. If the document is part of the products of research sponsored by an institution or program, the authors should give the corresponding credit.
8. Authors should not present data or issues that do not exist; present alleged documents or objects; as well as falsify real data and present evidence or deliberately distorted data.
9. Authors should avoid including confidential or classified information in their articles.

Section B: Duties of Reviewers

1. All referees must be fair and impartial. No referee can or should evaluate any text by any author with whom he or she is notably close, following the policy that "all participants in the peer review and publication process must declare all relationships that could be considered a potential conflict of interest".
2. All referees should consider whether they have the relevant expertise and time to evaluate any text for publication before accepting a review, following the policy that "referees should declare in writing any conflict of interest that might affect their evaluation of a manuscript and should refrain from evaluating manuscripts if they deem it appropriate".
3. Arbitrators may not delegate their work. They may, however, under their own responsibility, rely on the assistance or collaboration of other professionals in the subject matter being arbitrated, in accordance with the principles of the Editorial Board's code of ethics.
4. The arbitrators shall refrain from using any information acquired in the course of the arbitration proceedings for personal benefit or for the benefit or detriment of third parties.
5. The result of the arbitration process can only be sent through the channels established by the editorial board through the body of editors of the publication.
6. All referees are obliged to send the result of their verdict explaining precisely the reasons for their decision, whether in favor or against; taking into account originality, quality of the results and conclusions, clarity of presentation, updating and sufficiency of the references, as well as other criteria defined to ensure the scientific quality of the contributions.

Section C: Obligations of Publishers

1. The editors have the responsibility and the power to accept or reject the texts submitted for publication, always taking as a point of reference the compliance with the editorial and style standards of the corresponding publications.
2. The opinions expressed in the articles and other contents whose rights have been assigned represent the views of their authors, and do not necessarily reflect those of the Editors, the editorial staff or the Editorial Board and the University of Computer Sciences.
3. The editors are guided by the imperative to be impartial, honest, and confidential in their decisions regarding the evaluation of texts and the selection of the refereeing body, leaving aside any bias of any kind with respect to authors and referees.
4. The responsibility for ensuring the originality of the papers, free of plagiarism or fraud, lies entirely with the authors. Meanwhile, editors are responsible for identifying and retracting any article or content found to contain elements of plagiarism or fraud.
5. The editors undertake to inform the authors of the results of the evaluation of the contributions received.
6. Editors should respond promptly to requests from authors and should make every effort to avoid fraud, plagiarism and other actions contrary to compliance with this code in publications.

Editors are prohibited from publishing any text without the authorization of the author(s) of the text, once the author(s) of the text have been informed that their text has received a favorable verdict and have consented to the publication version.

ANTI-PLAGIARISM POLICY

The RCCI, based on its own Code of Conduct, maintains an anti-plagiarism policy that ensures that all published works are unpublished, through professional applications, which guarantees the originality of all manuscripts. RCCI clearly states its position against any form of plagiarism, conscious or unconscious, including self-plagiarism.

This anti-plagiarism policy ensures standards of originality to endorse novel and impactful scientific production, which is reaffirmed in our Ethics Statement. Authors, reviewers and editors also have a set of specific tools to detect plagiarism: Grammarly, Plagium, CopioNIC, WriteCheck, PaperRater, Plagarisma.net, Viper, Plagarism, etc, freely available or licensed platforms that monitor originality and control plagiarism.