Publication ethics and malpractice statement

The Spanish Journal of Rural Development (SJRD) is a peer-reviewed international journal committed to ensuring ethics in publication and quality of articles. Spanish Journal of Rural Development takes all possible measures against publication malpractices, in particular reject any form of plagiarism or fraudulent data, preserve confidentiality of submitted work, protect copyrights of published material, publish only original material, and provide a civil and efficient environment to support the publication process.

The following duties outlined for editors, authors, and reviewers are based on the Code of Conduct for Journal Editors (COPE) .


  1. Publication Decisions: Based on the editorial board's review, the editor can accept or reject the manuscript or can send it for modifications.

  2. Review of Manuscripts: The editor ensures that each manuscript is initially evaluated by him, who may make use of appropriate means, to examine the originality of their contents. After the manuscript passes this test, it is forwarded to two reviewers for double-blind peer review, and each of whom will make a recommendation to publish the manuscript in its present form or to modify-reject it.

  3. Fair Review: The editor ensures that each manuscript received is evaluated on its intellectual content, and the decision of publication will be based on the papers importance, originality and clarity, and the study’s validity and its relevance to the journal’s scope, without regard to authors’ gender, race, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship or political philosophy.

  4. Confidentiality: The editor and any editorial staff must not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher, as appropriate.

  5. Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest: The editor can not use unpublished materials, disclosed in submitted manuscript for his/her own research, without prior written consent of the author(s).


  1. Reporting Standards: Authors should accurately present their original research, as well as objectively discuss its significance. Underlying data should be represented accurately in the paper. A paper should contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behaviour and are unacceptable.

  2. Data Access and Retention: Authors are asked to provide the raw data in connection with a paper for editorial review, and should be prepared to provide public access to such data and should in any event be prepared to retain such data for a reasonable time after publication.

  3. Originality and Plagiarism: Authors must ensure that their work is entirely original, and if the authors have used the work and/or words of others that this has been appropriately cited.

    Applicable copyright laws and conventions should be followed. Copyright material (e.g. tables, figures or extensive quotations) should be reproduced only with appropriate permission and acknowledgement.

  4. Multiple, Redundant, or Concurrent Publications: Authors should not concurrently submit the same manuscript for publishing to other journals or primary publication.

  5. Acknowledgement of Sources: Author(s) should acknowledge all sources of data used in the research and cite publications that have influenced their research.

  6. Authorship of the Paper: Authorship should be limited only to those who have made a significant contribution to conceiving, designing, executing and/or interpreting the submitted study. All those who have significantly contributed to the study should be listed as co-authors. The corresponding author should also ensure that all the authors and co-authors have seen and approved the final submitted version of the manuscript and their inclusion as co-authors.

  7. Disclosure of Financial Support: All authors should disclose in their manuscript any financial or other substantive conflict of interest that might be construed to influence the results or interpretation of their manuscript. All sources of financial support for the project should be disclosed.

  8. Fundamental errors in published works: When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in his/her submitted manuscript, the author must immediately notify the editor and cooperate with the editor to retract or correct the paper.


  1. Confidentiality: Manuscript reviewers must not disclose any information regarding submitted manuscripts. All submitted manuscripts are to be treated as confidential documents.

  2. Acknowledgement of Sources: Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. A reviewer should also call to the editor's attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge.

  3. Standards of Objectivity: Review of submitted manuscripts will be conducted objectively. The reviewers shall express their views clearly, with supporting arguments. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate.

  4. Promptness: If a reviewer believes it is not possible for him/her to review the research reported in a manuscript within the designated guidelines, or within stipulated time, he/she should notify the editor, so that the accurate and timely review can be ensured.

  5. Disclosure and Conflict of Interest: Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.