Insuficiencia Cardiaca is committed to upholding the highest standards of ethical behavior in all stages of the publication process. The Journal follows internationally recognized guidelines for good publication practice, including the recommendations of organizations such as the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), and discipline-specific statements relevant to cardiology and cardiovascular medicine.
This document sets out the ethical responsibilities of editors, authors, reviewers, and the publisher, and describes how the Journal handles suspected misconduct and disputes.
1. General Principles
All research must be conducted and reported honestly, transparently, and responsibly.
Editorial decisions are based solely on scientific merit, originality, clarity, and relevance to the aims and scope of the Journal, without discrimination based on gender, ethnicity, nationality, political or religious beliefs, or institutional affiliation.
The integrity of the scientific and clinical record is paramount. Corrections, clarifications, retractions, and apologies are issued when necessary.
The Journal applies a single-blind peer-review process and strives to ensure fair, thorough, and timely evaluation of all submissions.
2. Responsibilities of Editors
The Editor-in-Chief, Associate Editors, and Editorial Board members are responsible for:
2.1. Editorial independence and fairness
Making editorial decisions based on the scientific quality and relevance of the manuscript, without undue influence from sponsors, advertisers, or other external interests.
Treating all submitted manuscripts confidentially, sharing details only with those involved in the editorial and peer-review process.
2.2. Decision-making
Selecting qualified reviewers with relevant expertise and ensuring that their assessments are considered carefully when making decisions.
Providing clear, reasoned decisions (accept, minor revision, major revision, reject) and communicating them promptly to authors.
Avoiding situations of conflict of interest; Editors will not handle manuscripts in which they have a personal, professional, or financial conflict.
2.3. Handling of misconduct and ethical concerns
Taking all allegations of misconduct — including plagiarism, data fabrication, duplicate publication, ethical breaches in patient or animal research — seriously.
Following a fair and transparent process in investigating concerns, which may involve seeking clarification from the authors, consulting additional experts, or referring to institutional or regulatory bodies.
Issuing corrections, expressions of concern, or retractions when necessary to preserve the integrity of the record.
3. Responsibilities of Reviewers
Reviewers play a crucial role in maintaining the scientific quality and integrity of the Journal.
3.1. Confidentiality
All manuscripts received for review are confidential documents. Reviewers must not share, discuss, or use the content for any purpose other than providing a review for the Journal.
Reviewers must not upload the manuscript or any part of it to public or commercial platforms, or to generative AI tools, as this may compromise confidentiality and data privacy.
3.2. Objectivity and quality of review
Reviews should be conducted in an objective, constructive, and respectful manner. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate.
Reviewers should provide clear comments and, where possible, references to relevant literature to support their recommendations.
3.3. Conflicts of interest
Reviewers must decline to review a manuscript if they have a conflict of interest, including personal, competitive, financial, or collaborative relationships with any of the authors, institutions, or funders.
If a potential conflict arises during review, the reviewer should inform the editor immediately.
3.4. Recognition of ethical or scientific issues
Reviewers should alert the editor to any suspected misconduct (e.g. plagiarism, duplicate publication, ethical concerns in human or animal research, or questionable data integrity).
If a reviewer feels unqualified to evaluate the manuscript or cannot complete the review on time, they should notify the editor promptly.
3.5. Use of AI tools by reviewers
Reviewers must not submit the manuscript or excerpts to generative AI systems for the purpose of generating or editing their review reports, as this may violate confidentiality and introduce inaccuracies or bias. The reviewer remains fully responsible for the content of the review.
4. Responsibilities of Authors
4.1. Originality and plagiarism
Authors must ensure that their work is original, has not been previously published (except as a preprint or abstract), and is not under consideration elsewhere.
The Journal checks submissions using similarity-detection software. Any form of plagiarism, including self-plagiarism, verbatim copying without citation, and unacknowledged reuse of figures or tables, is considered unethical and may result in rejection or further action.
4.2. Data integrity and reproducibility
Data, methods, and results presented in the manuscript must be accurate and complete. Fabrication, falsification, or selective reporting of data are serious forms of misconduct.
Where appropriate, authors should provide sufficient methodological detail to allow others to replicate or verify the findings. When data cannot be shared, the reasons (e.g. privacy, legal restrictions) should be clearly stated.
4.3. Authorship criteria
Authorship should be limited to those who have made a substantial contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the study, and who can take public responsibility for the content. Authors should:
Have contributed significantly to at least one of the following: study conception/design, data acquisition, analysis, or interpretation.
Be involved in drafting or critically revising the manuscript.
Approve the final version and agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work.
Individuals who contributed to the work but do not meet authorship criteria (e.g. technical support, administrative assistance, language editing) should be acknowledged in a separate Acknowledgments section with their permission.
4.4. Multiple, redundant, or concurrent publication
Authors should not submit the same or substantially similar manuscript to more than one journal at the same time.
Publication of overlapping content without transparency and proper citation (e.g. “salami publication”) is not acceptable. If a manuscript expands upon or updates previously published work, this relationship must be clearly stated and referenced.
4.5. Conflicts of interest and funding
Authors must disclose all financial and non-financial conflicts of interest that could be perceived as influencing the results or interpretation of their work (e.g. employment, consultancies, stock ownership, honoraria, paid expert testimony, patents, grants).
All sources of funding for the study should be clearly identified in the manuscript.
4.6. Ethical approval and patient consent
Research involving human participants, human tissue, or identifiable personal data must comply with the Declaration of Helsinki and relevant national or institutional regulations.
Authors must provide evidence of ethics committee or institutional review board (IRB) approval and indicate this in the manuscript, including approval number if available.
For case reports, clinical images, or any data where individual patients can be identified, informed consent from the patient (or legal guardian) is required; this consent should be mentioned in the manuscript.
When patient data are anonymized, authors should confirm that the anonymization process meets applicable privacy standards.
4.7. Animal research
Studies involving animals should follow recognized standards for the humane treatment of animals and must have received approval from an appropriate ethics committee or institutional animal care and use committee. The approval should be stated in the manuscript.
4.8. Clinical trial registration
Clinical trials should be registered in a public trial registry (e.g. ClinicalTrials.gov or another recognized registry) prior to patient enrolment. The registration number should be included in the manuscript.
4.9. Image integrity
Images (including radiologic images, histology, gels, etc.) must not be altered in a way that misleads or changes the interpretation of the data.
Adjustments of brightness, contrast, or color are acceptable only if they are applied to the entire image and do not obscure or eliminate any information.
The use of generative or AI-manipulated images that fabricate or distort research data is strictly prohibited.
4.10. Use of generative AI and AI-assisted tools by authors
Authors may use AI-assisted tools for language editing (e.g. grammar correction), organization of content, or literature search support, but:
AI tools must not be listed as authors. Authorship implies responsibility that only humans can assume.
Authors remain fully responsible for verifying the accuracy, completeness, and impartiality of any AI-generated text, references, or analyses.
Any use of AI tools in manuscript preparation (beyond simple spelling/grammar checks) should be disclosed in the manuscript (e.g. in the Methods or Acknowledgments), specifying the tool and how it was used.
Authors must ensure that the use of AI tools does not violate privacy, confidentiality, or intellectual property rights, especially when handling patient data or unpublished materials.
5. Responsibilities of the Publisher
The publisher of Insuficiencia Cardiaca supports the Editors in:
Maintaining editorial independence and the integrity of the scholarly record.
Implementing reasonable measures to prevent and address misconduct, including the use of plagiarism detection and guidelines for ethics.
Supporting the permanent archiving and preservation of published content.
Ensuring that corrections, retractions, or expressions of concern are clearly identified and freely accessible.
6. Misconduct and Questionable Practices
6.1. Types of misconduct
Misconduct may include (but is not limited to):
Plagiarism (including self-plagiarism and unattributed copying).
Data fabrication or falsification.
Duplicate or redundant publication without proper disclosure.
Inappropriate image manipulation.
Failure to obtain necessary ethical approvals or patient consent.
Undisclosed conflicts of interest.
Gift or ghost authorship.
6.2. Handling allegations
When the Journal becomes aware of potential misconduct:
The Editor-in-Chief (and/or designated editor) will conduct an initial assessment.
Authors may be contacted for an explanation or clarification.
If concerns persist, the Journal may consult independent experts or contact the authors’ institutions, ethics committees, or relevant authorities.
During an investigation, the Journal may put the manuscript on hold or, if already published, may issue an Expression of Concern.
6.3. Outcomes and sanctions
Depending on the severity and confirmation of misconduct, actions may include:
Rejection of the manuscript.
Publication of a correction, corrigendum, or erratum.
Publication of a retraction in line with COPE guidelines, with a clear explanation of the reasons.
Notification of the authors’ institution or relevant authorities.
In serious or repeated cases, the Journal may decide to refuse future submissions from the individuals involved for a defined period.
7. Corrections, Retractions, and Expressions of Concern
Corrections / Errata: Issued when a minor error is identified that does not invalidate the main findings but requires clarification.
Retractions: Issued when the findings are unreliable due to misconduct or honest error (e.g. major calculation mistakes, faulty methodology), or when ethical standards have been seriously breached. The original article is retained with a clear retraction notice.
Expressions of Concern: May be published when there is credible evidence of potential problems, but the investigation is incomplete or inconclusive.
All such notices will be linked to the original article and will be freely accessible.
8. Complaints and Appeals
Authors, reviewers, or readers who have concerns about editorial decisions, peer-review conduct, or ethical issues may contact the Journal at revista@insuficienciacardiaca.press.
Complaints will be:
Acknowledged promptly.
Reviewed impartially by the Editor-in-Chief or a delegated senior editor not directly involved in the original decision.
Escalated, if necessary, to the publisher or an independent advisor.
Where appropriate, authors may request an appeal of an editorial decision. Appeals should present clear, substantive arguments, referencing specific scientific or methodological points. The Journal does not guarantee that an appeal will change the original decision, but it will be considered in good faith.
9. Advertising, Sponsorship, and Supplements
If the Journal accepts advertising, sponsored content, or supplements in the future:
Editorial decisions will remain completely independent from commercial or sponsor interests.
All sponsored content will be clearly labeled as such and will not compromise the integrity or objectivity of the editorial material.
At present, Insuficiencia Cardiaca does not allow any sponsor or advertiser to influence the acceptance or rejection of manuscripts.
10. Final Statement
By submitting a manuscript to Insuficiencia Cardiaca, serving as a reviewer, or participating in the editorial process, all parties acknowledge that they have read and agree to abide by this Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement.