Code of Ethics

I. Responsibilities of Authors

I.1 Originality and Integrity of Work

Authors who submit manuscripts to this journal declare, through the act of submission, that the work is original, unpublished, and is not under simultaneous consideration in another publication. The data, results, and arguments presented must be authentic and supported by the research process described.

Texts must be original, with complete data and an objective discussion of results.
Plagiarism, redundant publication, duplication or segmentation of manuscripts, and data manipulation are considered serious violations that activate the misconduct procedures established in Section VI of this code.
No significant part of the article should have been previously published or be under evaluation elsewhere. In the case of overlap with the author's own prior works, the author must explicitly declare this.
If the author discovers a serious error in their published work, they must immediately notify the journal to proceed with correction or retraction as appropriate.

I.2 Attribution and Authorship

Authorship must accurately reflect the actual intellectual contributions of each signatory. This journal adopts the authorship criteria established in its Authorship Guidelines (Version 1.0, 2026), based on the three cumulative criteria of substantial contribution, participation in the drafting, and final approval.

Authors must provide adequate attribution to all sources used and refrain from misrepresenting their relationship to previous works.
Honorary or fictitious authorship — including as author someone who does not meet the three criteria — and ghost authorship — omitting someone who does meet them — are sanctionable conduct pursuant to COPE procedures.
Authors must declare the individual roles of each signatory using the CRediT taxonomy prior to submission.

I.3 Conflict of Interest

Upon submitting an article, all authors must declare any financial or personal relationship with public or private entities that could influence the results, analysis, or conclusions of the work. Non-financial conflicts must also be declared: personal, academic, ideological, or political.

The absence of conflict of interest must also be explicitly declared. The declaration is made through the cover letter to the editor and the Similarity and AI Form.

I.4 Informed Consent and Protection of Participants

It is the exclusive responsibility of authors to guarantee the right to privacy of persons involved in their research. This requires the exhaustive anonymization of their identity in the text and in all attached resources: images, graphics, recordings, transcripts, and any other material that could allow the identification of participants.

The incorporation of personal information or visual representations of third parties requires prior written informed consent, signed by the person or their legal representatives in the case of minors.
If, after publication, information is identified that would allow the identification of participants without due consent, the article will be temporarily withdrawn until the situation is remedied.
Research involving human participants must declare the approval of the corresponding institutional ethics committee.

I.5 Ethical Responsibilities Related to the Use of AI

The use of artificial intelligence tools in the research process or in the preparation of the manuscript does not exempt the author from any of their ethical responsibilities. In accordance with this journal's Artificial Intelligence Use Policy (Version 1.0, 2026), authors assume the following specific ethical commitments:

Declare the use of AI at the level corresponding to the journal's three-tier model. Undeclared use of AI at Level 2 or Level 3 constitutes an ethical violation equivalent to the omission of relevant methodological information.
Independently verify all factual information — citations, data, references — generated or retrieved with AI tools. Language models may produce incorrect information or non-existent references.
Anonymize human participant data before entering it into any AI tool. This obligation is absolute and non-derogable.
Not use AI to generate text intended to artificially reduce the similarity index in Turnitin or equivalent software.
Assume full responsibility for all content of the manuscript, including AI-assisted content. AI cannot be named as an author or share responsibility.

II. Responsibilities of the Editorial Team

II.1 Impartiality and Respect for Intellectual Independence

The Editorial Team manages works proposed for publication with absolute impartiality, without commercial, personal, or institutional considerations. Authors have the right to a substantiated reply in the case of negative evaluations.

No member of the Editorial Team may use data, arguments, or interpretations from unpublished works received for their own research without the express written consent of the authors.
The intellectual independence of authors must be respected at all times. The editorial team may not pressure authors to modify their conclusions or arguments for purposes other than improving scientific rigor.
All interference from the promoting institution in editorial decisions must be avoided.

II.2 Confidentiality

Members of the Editorial Team are obligated to maintain confidentiality about received manuscripts and their content until they are accepted for publication. Only then may the title and authorship be disclosed. This obligation extends to the metadata of the editorial process and to reviewer evaluations.

II.3 Publication Decision

All contributions are initially evaluated by the Editorial Team, which selects and decides which articles meet editorial objectives and should advance to peer review. Suitable documents are sent to a minimum of two independent reviewers, experts in the field. The final decision rests with the Editor-in-Chief or the corresponding section editor.

The decision to publish is based on the scientific relevance of the work for researchers, professionals, and the Pan-American academic community. Never on commercial considerations or institutional convenience.

II.4 Editorial Conflicts of Interest

Editors with conflicts of interest or problematic relationships with respect to a manuscript must refrain from participating in its evaluation and decision. Editorial responsibility falls on an editor without conflicts of interest. The following are considered mandatory grounds for abstention:

Direct personal relationship with any of the authors.
Recent and significant professional collaboration with the authors.
Financial interest in the subject or outcome of the research.
Academic rivalry or intellectual competition with the authors.
Subjective inability to be objective, for any reason.

II.5 Monitoring of Unethical Practices and Conduct

Members of the Editorial Committee will not encourage or permit misconduct of any kind. At any sign of improper conduct, the responsible editor must:

Contact the authors so they can respond or comment on the situation.
Carefully distinguish between honest human errors and deliberate fraud.
Document all relevant details of the case investigation process.
Consider the possibility of withdrawing the publication in the case of proven misconduct, or issuing a note of concern if the evidence is inconclusive, or requesting correction of the incorrect segment when the error can be remedied.

In all cases, the COPE decision flowcharts available at https://publicationethics.org/ will be followed.

III. Responsibilities of Reviewers

III.1 Competence and Objectivity

Reviewers must possess significant scientific or professional expertise in the subject area of the manuscript they evaluate, have conducted recent research in the field, and be recognized by their peers. They must refrain from accepting a review when:

They are not sufficiently qualified to evaluate the manuscript rigorously.
Their evaluation cannot be objective for personal, academic, or financial interest reasons.
There is a conflict of interest with the authors or with the content of the manuscript.
They do not have the time necessary to conduct a rigorous evaluation within the established deadline.

III.2 Confidentiality and Use of Information

Reviewers must treat received manuscripts as confidential documents. They may not share the content with third parties or use it for their own research without the express consent of the authors. This obligation extends to the use of AI tools:

Reviewers may not enter the content of a manuscript under review into publicly accessible AI tools. Doing so constitutes a violation of the confidentiality of the peer review process. If a reviewer uses AI as a support tool in their evaluation process, they must inform the responsible editor.

III.3 Quality and Constructiveness of the Evaluation

Reviewers must provide well-founded, constructive, respectful evaluations delivered within the agreed deadlines. They should point out relevant published works that have not been cited in the manuscript. Reviewers who provide low-quality, incorrect, disrespectful, or systematically late evaluations will be excluded.

III.4 Identification of Improper Conduct

Reviewers must be alert to possible improper conduct in the manuscripts they evaluate: plagiarism, data fabrication, falsification of results, or undeclared use of AI. At any sign, they must immediately notify the responsible editor with the corresponding evidence.

IV. Conflict of Interest Policy

This journal adopts a conflict of interest policy that covers all actors in the editorial process: authors, editors, and reviewers.

The most obvious conflicts of interest are economic relationships. However, they can also arise from friendships, intellectual rivalries, academic competitions, or personal beliefs. This journal recognizes the complexity of these situations and appeals to the honesty and personal judgment of each actor for their identification and declaration.

V. Informed Consent and Privacy in Research

It is the responsibility of authors to ensure strict compliance with the right to privacy of persons involved in their research. This commitment extends, in this journal, to data processed with artificial intelligence tools.

VI. Declaration of Misconduct and Procedures

VI.1 Conduct Constituting Misconduct

Misconduct in scientific publication encompasses a set of behaviors that compromise the integrity of knowledge and the trust of the academic community. This journal identifies the following:

VI.2 Procedure for Misconduct Reports

In the face of any misconduct report, the journal will act in accordance with COPE procedures and decision flowcharts. The general process is as follows:

Receipt of the written complaint, with documented evidence. Anonymous accusations without adequate evidence do not activate the investigation process.
Contact with the reported author, editor, or reviewer so they can respond or comment. Good faith is presumed until evidence proves otherwise.
Evaluation of evidence by the Editorial Committee, distinguishing between honest error and deliberate fraud.
Editorial decision in accordance with COPE: correction, note of concern, retraction, or closure of the case without consequences.
Written notification to all parties involved and, where appropriate, to affiliated institutions and indexing databases.

Reported individuals are protected against false or anonymous accusations. An investigation process is only initiated when there is sufficient and documented evidence to justify it.

VI.3 Consequences According to Severity

VII. Complaints, Claims, and Suggestions Policy

PanAmerican DH&AI is committed to responding to and resolving all complaints, claims, and suggestions in a prompt, constructive, and transparent manner. The complaints policy is open to authors, reviewers, readers, and researchers in general.

VII.1 How to Submit a Complaint or Suggestion

Communications must be sent in writing to the official email of the journal's Editorial Committee.
They must include the sender's identification, a clear description of the reason for the complaint, and the evidence or documentation supporting it.
Complaints related to ethical conduct must include sufficient evidence to justify the initiation of an investigation.

VII.2 Response Timelines

VII.3 Resolution Framework

The Editorial Committee studies each case based on the recommendations of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Resolution decisions seek to balance the protection of the rights of all parties involved with the preservation of the scientific integrity of the publication.