About the Journal

Focus and Scope

Quaestiones disputatae - Topics in Debate is a biannual, serialised publication of the Humanities Department at the Santo Tomas University in Tunja, Colombia, which seeks to contribute to the spread and development of scientific knowledge in the field of humanities and social sciences. It publishes original papers of research, reflection and review of national and international researchers and academics, whose topics are confined to the field of Philosophy, Theology, Sociology, Anthropology, Education and other related subjects.

Peer Review Process

a) Reception. Upon receipt of a paper, the publisher will inform the writer of the evaluation process the text will need to go through. Please note that the submission of an article does not generate any cost, nor does its receipt guarantee its publication.

c) Peer Review. In a second stage, the article is to be submitted to evaluation by two experts on the specific subject of the contribution. The evaluation will take place under a "double-blind" approach, ie, neither the writer nor the arbitrators will know the identity of the other role involved in the process. The referees will consider aspects for evaluation such as the interest to the reader, the structure and content of the written form and originality of the text, whilst also giving some specific recommendations.

The evaluating peers will have the power to assess the item as 1) publishable; 2) publishable with modifications, to be stated in the evaluation form; 3) not publishable. In the event that the item is evaluated as option 1), the article be submited to the editing process. If the item is valued with option 2) the writer will be told immediately of any corrections which must be made within no more than 15 days. Finally, if the item is declared as not publishable (option 3), the writer will be informed of the corresponding arguments supporting the decision of the evaluating peers. It should be noted that the writer may appeal the decision of the evaluators by means of a formal letter, setting forth the reasons for the appeal. This letter will be presented to the editorial committee who will determine whether to appoint a third evaluator. A third evaluating peer may also be appointed in the event that the first peer not meet the three week evaluation deadline.

c) Approval. Once the verdict of the evaluation has been issued and advised, and the writer has made the necessary adjustments, the Editorial Committee will review that these have been carried out satisfactorily. If the result of the process is successful, the article will enter the stage of copyediting, layout and printing. During this last phase, the writer is entitled to see the result of the copyediting to validate that it has not resulted in any alteration to the meaning of the text.

Open access policy

This journal provides open access to its content, based on the principle that giving the public free access to research helps in a greater global exchange of knowledge. However, such a policy must be included within the parameters established by the Creative Commons Attribution-Non-Commercial-Without Deriving 4.0 International License. Accordingly, the full texts of these articles are authorized to be read, downloaded, copied, distributed, printed, searched or linked, as long as the authors of the texts and the Quaestiones Disputatae Journal are given credit: issues under debate as a source of original publication. The commercial use of copying or distribution of content is not allowed, as well as the adaptation, derivation or transformation of any of these without the prior authorization of the authors and the management of Quaestiones Disputatae: issues under discussion. For more information on the terms of this license you can consult:

This work is under a licencia de Creative Commons Reconocimiento-NoComercial-SinObraDerivada 4.0 Internacional.

 

Code of ethics

1.1 Ethical considerations.

Quaestiones disputatae - Temas en debate, adheres to the "Code of Conduct and Good Practice Guide for editors of scientific journals" (http://publicationethics.org/files/Code%20of%20Conduct_2.pdf) and the provisions of the Statutory Habeas Data Law 1266 2008 for handling personal information in databases.

Some of the considerations for authors, editor and peer reviewers are outlined below:

 

For authors:

- The works that the authors submit should not be sent simultaneously to other journals, as this compromises the originality of the articles and publication rights.

- It is considered unacceptable to reproduce texts from other authors without clearly indicating their origin.

- It is considered unacceptable to incorporate fully or partially own texts that have already been published without clearly indicating where they were originally published.

- The authors commit themselves to the tasks arising from the arbitration process and the publication, such as reviewing and incorporating the corrections suggested by the assessment, responding to comments and questions which may be the result of publishing the document (copyediting and adequacy to the editorial guidelines); the author is also responsible of carrying out said work within the agreed deadlines between the author and the editor.

 

For the Editor:

It is necessary the Editor strive to

- meet the needs of authors and readers related to the editing, evaluation and dissemination of the magazine.

- To constantly improve the processes of the magazine.

- Abide by the necessary processes to ensure the quality of the material published.

- Be an advocate for the defense of freedom of expression

- Always be willing to issue corrections, clarifications, retractions and apologies when necessary.

 

For evaluating peers:

The evaluating peers must

- commit to evaluating only items for which they have sufficient expertise required to issue an appropriate and objective judgment, doing so within a reasonable time and meeting the deadlines.

- Respect the confidentiality required by his role as an evaluating peer and not disclose details of the article or review during or after the evaluation, including those related to the magazine.

- Declare all potential conflicts of interest they may have with the article or research involved, as well as those that may affect the impartiality of its assessment.

- Be objective and constructive in their comments, annotations avoiding hostile or prejudiced comments that may affect the impartiality of its assessment.

 

Costs

The authors do not assume any cost for the processing of articles, nor for the submission of articles (there is no cost for the editorial process of their articles).