About the Journal

Focus and Scope

The journal Avances en Enfermería of the Universidad Nacional de Colombia is a communication mean to disseminate the scientific outcomes derived from research, literature reviews, experiences and reflections of the various national and international health entities and academic communities that contribute to the theoretical growth of the professional nursing
trade.

The journal Avances en Enfermería is published thrice a year and receives articles written in Spanish, Portuguese and English.

The journal Avances en Enfermería does not charge readers for downloading the articles; and the processes of revision, peer evaluation and publication do not generate costs for the authors.

Peer Review Process

ARTICLES SELECTION AND REVISION PROCEDURE

The procedure to select articles and ensuing revision for inclusion in Avances en Enfermería is as follows:

1. As soon as manuscripts are submitted through OJS, they are sent to Editorial Committee and shall be initially reviewed by the Editor Assistant to verify that they comply with the formal elements required in the Instructions to authors. Should they not fulfill those criteria, the document shall be excluded of the selection process evaluation. If errors are minor, manuscript will be returned to the author, indicating the failures found in the first evaluation.

2. If it complies with the formal requirements, the document is then submitted to our Non- Plagiarism System and its bibliographic references will be thoroughly revised. Subsequently, we sent an email to inform authors manuscript was received.

3. Immediately, manuscript is sent to two peer evaluators appointed by Editorial Committee for its review: one of them shall be a professor at the Universidad Nacional de Colombia and the other from outside the university ―foreign or native― who should be experts on the topic addressed in the article. If manuscript is positively evaluated by one evaluator and negative by other, one third is appointed, and based on his/her opinion the document inclusion is decided in the publication. The author’s identity shall not be disclosed to the evaluators and the evaluators’ names shall not be disclosed to the author.

4. Based on the evaluators’ opinion, Committee shall decide if the article is published or not. In any case, the author shall receive an email indicating the opinion of the peer evaluators, stating the decision made and, if it is accepted, the appropriate suggestions and changes shall be confirmed to the author before article is published.

5. Once changes are received from the author, Editorial Committee shall send the manuscript to copyeditor and/or proofreader. Once corresponding edition is completed, manuscript is returned to the author for his/her approval in a term no longer tan five (5) working days. Authors should send authorization and state precisely the changes he/she does not accept, this authorization makes him responsible for all the statements made in his/ her article, including those submitted to changes by copyeditor and/or proofreader and authorized by authors.

6. If five (5) working days after reception of document, autor/s have/s not made any statement regarding contents, Editorial Committee shall assume that he/she/they accept/s editorial changes that were made.

7. Authors should forward the Publindex form data to Editorial Committee.

Open Access Policy

This journal provides immediate free access to its content under the principle that making research available to the public free of charge supports a greater exchange of global knowledge.
All articles published by Avances en Enfermería are licensed under the Licencia Internacional Creative Commons Attribution 4.0. This allows anyone to copy, redistribute, remix, transmit and adapt the work as long as the original work and the source are properly cited.

Ethical guidelines on publication

ETHICS IN SCIENTIFIC PUBLICATION

The journal Avances en Enfermería stipulates the following principles and recommendations concerning ethics in scientific articles publication:

1. General principles

1.1. Manuscripts should include enough details and references that the article may be replied or refuted.

1.2. Fraudulent or deliberately inaccurate statements constitute an anti-ethical behaviour.

1.3. If research includes chemical products, procedures, or equipment involving any unusual risk inherent in their use, authors must identify them clearly in the main part of the article.

1.4. If research implies the use of animal or human beings, authors should make sure that the article contains an explicit statement declaring that all the procedures were carried out in conformity both with the guidelines and ethical regulations.

1.5. Rights to privacy of human beings should be respected.

2. Authorship

Principles:

2.1. An author is the person who has made significant intellectual contribution to the investigation. Thus, anyone mentioned as author should fulfil all the requirements of authorship; and, in accordance, anyone who fulfils those requirements should be explicitly mentioned as author.

2.2. Authors should satisfy completely three basic requirements to be recognized as such:

a) Considerable contribution to the conception and design; data collection; and the analysis and interpretation of research.

b) Drawing-up or checking of the intellectual content.

c) Approval of the final version.

2.3. Authorship’s arrangement should be a joint decision of co-authors.

2.4. Those people who, taking part in the research, do not satisfy the requirements of authorship, should be mentioned as contributors or acknowledged persons.

2.5. There are three unacceptable kinds of authorship: ghost authors who do contribute substantially to the investigation, but are not recognized —they are usually paid by commercial developers—; guest authors who do not noticeably contribute to the investigation, but are mentioned in order to increase the possibilities of the article to be published; and the ad honorem authorships, based only in a slight affiliation to the study.

Recommendations:

2.6. Before the beginning of the investigation, it is recommended to document the functions of each investigator and how their authorship will be recognized.

2.7. There should be no lies about someone’s participation in the investigation or publication. If his/her contribution is deemed as substantial, then the authorship is justified, whether as author or as contributor.

2.8. No authorship should be assigned without the approval of the person involved.

2.9. Anyone mentioned as author should fulfil all the requirements of authorship, and all who meet those requirements should be mentioned as authors or contributors.

2.10. A number of teams present their authors in alphabetical order, in some cases with an explanatory note declaring that all authors contributed equally both to the investigation and to the publication.

3. Modifications in authorship

Principles:

3.1. It refers to the addition, suppression, or rearrangement of authors’ name in the authorship of an admitted article.

3.2. Requests demanding addition or suppression of authors, or the rearrangement of authors’ names, should be send by the respective author of the admitted article, and should include:

a) The causes justifying the addition or suppression, or the rearrangement of the authors’ names.

b) Confirmation in writing (by e-mail) of all authors agreeing with the addition, suppression or rearrangement. If authors’ addition or suppression is required, it must be attached same author’s confirmation of his/her addition or suppression.

4. Conflict of interests

Principles:

4.1. There is possible conflict of interests if an investigator or author has opinions or personal/financial interests that may affect his/her objectivity, or influence inappropriately his/her actions. These conflicts may be real potential.

4.2. The more evident conflicts of interests are associated with financial relationships, which may be:

a) Direct: employment, stocks ownership, scholarships and patents.

b) Indirect: fees, consultancy to development companies, investment funds’ ownership, paid expert witness.

4.3. Conflicts could also emerge as result of personal relationships, academic rivalry, and intellectual passion. For instance, an investigator who has:

a) Any kind of personal interest in investigation’s results.

b) Personal opinions in direct conflict with the subject under research.

Recommendations:

4.4. Reveal if there exists any real or potential conflict of interests that may influence inappropriately (slant) the work, by influencing improperly in the findings or results of research, in a three-year period since the beginning of the submitted work.

4.5. Reveal the role played by one or more promoters of the study —if any—, in the design of study; in gathering, analysis and interpretation of data; in report’s drawing-up; and in the decision to submit the article to be published.

4.6. Investigators should not agree on terms interfering with their access to all data; with their capacity to analyse them independently; or with the manuscript’s preparation or publication.

4.7. When submitting a document, there should be an explicit statement —under the heading “Role of the funding source”— in an independent section of the text and placed before the section of References.

4.8. Some instances of possible conflicts of interest that must be revealed may be: employment, consultancy, stocks ownership, fees, paid expert witness, patents/registry applications, and requests to subvention or another funding source.

4.9. Every funding source of the project must be revealed.

4.10. The role of the project sponsor should be described.

5. Duplicate publication

Principles:

5.1. Authors are obliged to prove their article to be based in original research, i.e., to have been not previously published. Intentional sending or resending of your work to another journal, thereby generating duplication, is considered a breach of editorial ethics.

5.2. Duplicate or multiple publications occur when two or more articles, without mutually referencing each other, share essentially the same hypothesis, data, discussion points, or conclusions. This may occur in different degrees: word-for-word duplication; partial but substantial; or even duplication by paraphrase.

5.3. Among the principal reasons why duplicate publication of original researches is considered non-ethical, is that it may allow inadequate weighting or involuntary double recount of results of a single research, thereby distorting available evidence.

Recommendations:

5.4. Articles submitted for publication should be originals and should not be submitted to another journal. When submitting, authors should reveal details of articles relating to theirs —even in another language—, similar articles in press and translations.

5.5. Both authors and editors should have continual communication about the state of articles under review; if authors decide to give up the process and withdraw the article, they are obliged to notify the journal about it, before come in contact with another journal.

5.6. Avoid submitting articles previously published in another journal.

5.7. Avoid submitting to more than one journal articles that describe essentially the same research.

5.8. Always indicate previous submissions of the article —including presentation in meetings and inclusion of results in registries— that may be deemed as duplicate publication.

5.9. Avoid writing in two or more articles about your own research from different angles, or about different aspects of the research, without mentioning the original article.

5.10. Creating several publications about no-multicentre investigations is considered as not recommended behaviour.

5.11. If you wish to submit your articles to a journal published in another country or in another language, please ask for information and guidelines about it to the publishing company.

5.12. At the time of submission, indicate every detail about articles relating to yours in a different language, and all current translations.

6. Recognition of sources

Principles:

6.1. Authors should reference publications that have been influential in the determination of the nature of the submitted article.

6.2. Information obtained privately should not be used without explicit permission in writing of the source.

6.3. Reuse of tables or figures requires permission of the authors and the publishing company that should be adequately indicated in the legend of the table or figure.

6.4. Information obtained in the course of confidential services (e.g. manuscripts of peer review or subvention requests) should not be used without explicit permission in writing of the author of the work involved in those services.

7. Scientific fraud

Principles:

7.1. Fraud in scientific publication makes reference to the presentation of false data or results as well as data or results not generated through rigorous investigation process.

7.2. Following are the kinds of fraud in publication of investigation results:

a) Fabrication of data: invention of data and investigation results in order to be published.

b) Falsification of data: manipulation of investigation materials, images, data, equipment or processes. Forgery includes modification or omission of data or results, so that the investigation is not properly represented. Someone may falsify data to adequate them to the final desired result.

Recommendations:

7.3. Before the first submission of an article, read carefully journal’s editorial and data policies.

7.4. Never modify or omit data intentionally. This includes investigation materials, analysis methods, processes, equipment, tables, references and bibliographic references.

7.5. Both fabrication and falsification of data are serious forms of misbehaviour, because both of them result in scientific publications not reflecting precisely the observed truth.

7.6. Authors should adequately manage data that support investigation, with special care in data collecting, production, keeping, analysis and communication.

7.7. Keep thorough records of raw data, which should be accessible in case editors request them even before article’s publication.

8. Plagiarism

Principles:

8.1. Plagiarism is one of the more commons ways of misconduct in publishing. It occurs when one of authors passes other people’s work off as his own, without permission, mention or acknowledgment. Plagiarism appears under different ways, from word-for-word copy to paraphrase of other people’s work, including data, ideas, concepts, words or sentences.

8.2. Plagiarism has different levels of seriousness, for instance:

a) The amount of work taken from another person’s work: several lines, paragraphs, pages, the entire article.

b) What was copied: results, methods or introductory section.

8.3. Plagiarism in all its forms constitutes an unacceptable non-ethical conduct in editorial and academic spheres.

8.4. Word-for-word copy is acceptable only if the source is indicated and the copied text included with adequate marks of citation.

Recommendations:

8.5. Always remember that is essential to recognise other people’s work —including your adviser’s work, or your own previous work— as part of the process.

8.6. Do not reproduce any work word-for-word, either partially or entirely, without permission or mention of the original source.

8.7. Keep a record of sources used during investigation, and where did you use them in the article.

8.8. Make sure that the original source is entirely acknowledged and adequately referenced in your article.

8.9. When referencing the source, avoid using another people’s work word-for-word unless you enclose it in quotes and only in case of strict necessity.

8.10. Only if the source is correctly indicated and if you make sure of not altering the significance of the source’s intention would the paraphrase be acceptable.

8.11. Enclose in quotes and reference all contents taken from a previously published source, even if you are stating them with your own words.

9. Fragmentation

Principles:

9.1. Fragmentation consists in dividing or segmenting a big research in two or more publications.

9.2. It is considered an unacceptable conduct that fragments of a divided research share the same hypothesis, sample and methods.

9.3. The same fragment should not be published more than one time, since fragmentation may allow distortion in literature, and may have readers believe that data presented in each fragment (i.e., each article) are derived from a different sample of subjects.

Recommendations:

9.4. Avoid fragmenting inappropriately the data of just one research in two or more works.

9.5. When submitting a work, be transparent during the process. Send copies of other manuscripts closely relating to the manuscript involved.

10. Informed consent

Principles:

10.1. Research on patients or volunteers should be approved by an ethics committee.

10.2. Informed consent should be appropriately documented.

10.3. Permissions and releasing should be obtained when authors wish to include case details or any other personal images or information of patients or anyone else.

10.4. When obtaining informed consent, care should be taken regarding participants, especially vulnerable people. For instance, children with special needs or learning disabilities. It must be recalled that the use of photographs or explicit declarations of patients —parts of an interview— should have authorization in writing of those involved or their legal representatives.

11. Correction of published articles

Principles:

11.1. When authors detect mistakes or relevant inaccuracies in the published work, they are obliged to notify immediately the journal and to cooperate in the process of correction.

Bibliography

Black, William, Rodolfo Russo y David Turton. "The supergravity fields for a D-Brane with a travelling wave from string amplitudes". Physics Letters B 694, n.o 3 (noviembre de 2010):246-51.

Elsevier. Autoría. Ethics in research & publication". Accedido 8 de agosto de 2014. http://www.elsevier.com/__data/assets/pdf_file/0010/183394/ETHICS_ES_AUTH01a_updatedURL.pdf.

———. "Conflicto de intereses. Ethics in research & publication". Accedido 8 de agosto de 2014. http://www.elsevier.com/__data/assets/pdf_file/0006/183399/ETHICS_ES_COI01a_updatedURL.pdf.

———. "Envío simultáneo/múltiple, publicación duplicada. Ethics in research & publication". Accedido 8 de agosto de 2014. http://www.elsevier.com/__data/assets/pdf_file/0019/183403/ETHICS_ES_SSUB01a_updatedURL.pdf.

———. "Ethics. Conducting research". Accedido 8 de agosto de 2014. http://www.elsevier.com/journal-authors/ethics#conducting-research.

———. "Ethics. Writing an article". Accedido 8 de agosto de 2014. http://www.elsevier.com/journal-authors/ethics#writing-an-article.

———. "Fragmentación. Ethics in research & publication". Accedido 8 de agosto de 2014. http://www.elsevier.com/__data/assets/pdf_file/0018/183402/ETHICS_ES_SS01a_updatedURL.pdf.

———. "Fraude en investigación. Ethics in research & publication". Accedido 8 de agosto de 2014. http://www.elsevier.com/__data/assets/pdf_file/0017/183401/ETHICS_ES_RF01a_updatedURL.pdf.

———. "Plagio. Ethics in research & publication". Accedido 8 de agosto de 2014. http://www.elsevier.com/__data/assets/pdf_file/0016/183400/ETHICS_ES_PLA01a_updatedURL.pdf.

Journal History

The journal Avances en Enfermería is a communication mean to disseminate the scientific outcomes derived
from research, literature reviews, experiences and reflections of the various national and international health entities and academic communities that contribute to the theoretical growth of the professional nursing
trade.