Code of Ethics

Code of Ethics. Version 1.0 · 2026. Based on the principles of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE): https://publicationethics.org/

PanAmerican Journal of Digital Humanities & AI (PanAmerican DH&AI) adopts as its ethical foundation the shared commitment of authors, editors and reviewers to responsible, rigorous, high-quality research. This Code is based on COPE principles and incorporates the ethical commitments that arise from the use of artificial intelligence in academic research, a reality that calls for a specific framework which traditional codes do not cover.

Related pages: Conflict of interest · Informed Consent · Statement on Malpractice · Policy on Complaints, Claims, and Suggestions.

I. Responsibilities of authors

I.1 Originality and integrity of the work. By submitting a manuscript, authors declare that the work is original, unpublished and not under simultaneous consideration elsewhere. Data, results and arguments 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 splitting of manuscripts, and data manipulation are serious offenses and trigger the malpractice procedures (see Statement on Malpractice).
  • No significant part of the article may have been published before or be under evaluation elsewhere. Any overlap with the authors’ own previous work must be declared explicitly.
  • If an author discovers a serious error in a published work, they must report it to the journal immediately so that a correction or retraction can follow.

I.2 Attribution and authorship. Authorship must accurately reflect each signatory’s real intellectual contribution. The journal applies the three cumulative criteria of its Authorship Policy: substantial contribution, participation in drafting, and final approval.

  • Authors must give proper attribution to all sources and must not misrepresent their relationship to prior work.
  • Honorary or fictitious authorship (including as author someone who does not meet the three criteria) and ghost authorship (omitting someone who does) are sanctionable under COPE procedures.
  • Authors must declare each signatory’s role using the CRediT taxonomy before submission.

I.3 Conflicts of interest. On submission, all authors must declare any financial or personal relationship with public or private entities that could influence the results, analysis or conclusions, as well as non-financial conflicts (personal, academic, ideological or political). The absence of a conflict must also be declared explicitly, in the cover letter to the editor and in the Similarity and AI Form.

I.4 Informed consent and protection of participants. Authors alone are responsible for guaranteeing the privacy of the people involved in their research (see Informed Consent).

I.5 Ethical responsibilities linked to the use of AI. Using artificial intelligence tools in research or in preparing a manuscript does not relieve the author of any ethical responsibility. In line with the journal’s AI Use Policy (Version 1.0, 2026), authors commit to:

  • Declare AI use at the level that applies under the journal’s three-level model. Undeclared Level 2 or Level 3 use is an ethical violation comparable to omitting relevant methodological information.
  • Independently verify all factual information (quotations, data, references) generated or retrieved with AI tools. Language models can produce incorrect information or non-existent references.
  • Anonymize human participants’ data before entering it into any AI tool. This obligation is absolute and non-negotiable.
  • Not use AI to generate text intended to artificially lower the similarity index in Turnitin or equivalent software.
  • Take 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 handles submissions with complete impartiality, free of commercial, personal or institutional considerations. Authors have the right to a reasoned reply to negative evaluations.

  • No member of the Editorial Team may use data, arguments or interpretations from unpublished submissions in their own research without the authors’ express written consent.
  • Authors’ intellectual independence must be respected at all times. The Editorial Team may not pressure authors to change their conclusions or arguments for any purpose other than improving scientific rigor.
  • Interference by the sponsoring institution in editorial decisions must be avoided. Membership of PAC-DHCAI, sponsorships and any other support received by PAC-DHCAI or Anglo Latin Culture 369 Corp. have no influence on peer review, editorial decisions or publication, and grant no priority or early access to journal content.

II.2 Confidentiality. Members of the Editorial Team must keep submitted manuscripts and their content confidential until they are accepted for publication. Only then may the title and authorship be disclosed. This duty extends to editorial process metadata and to reviewers’ evaluations.

II.3 Publication decision. All contributions are first evaluated by the Editorial Team, which decides which articles meet the editorial aims and proceed to peer review. Suitable documents go to at least two independent expert reviewers. The final decision rests with the Editor-in-Chief or the relevant section editor. The decision to publish rests on the scientific relevance of the work for researchers, practitioners and the Pan-American academic community, never on commercial considerations or institutional convenience.

II.4 Editorial conflicts of interest. Editors with a conflict of interest or problematic relationship regarding a manuscript must abstain from its evaluation and decision, which is then handled by an editor without a conflict. Grounds for mandatory abstention:

  1. A direct personal relationship with any of the authors.
  2. Recent, significant professional collaboration with the authors.
  3. A financial interest in the topic or outcome of the research.
  4. Academic rivalry or intellectual competition with the authors.
  5. Being an author or co-author of the manuscript, or any other circumstance in which the editor cannot be objective.

II.5 Monitoring unethical practices and conduct. Members of the Editorial Team will not encourage or allow misconduct of any kind. On any sign of misconduct, the responsible editor must:

  1. Contact the authors so they can respond or comment on the situation.
  2. Distinguish carefully between honest human error and deliberate fraud.
  3. Document all relevant details of the investigation.
  4. Consider retracting the publication if misconduct is proven, issuing an expression of concern if the evidence is inconclusive, or requesting correction of the faulty section 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 have significant scientific or professional expertise in the subject area of the manuscript, recent research in the field and recognition from their peers. They must decline a review when:

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

III.2 Confidentiality and use of information. Reviewers must treat manuscripts as confidential documents. They may not share the content with third parties or use it for their own research without the authors’ express consent. This duty extends to AI tools: reviewers may not enter the content of a manuscript under evaluation into publicly accessible AI tools. Doing so violates the confidentiality of peer review. If a reviewer uses AI as a support tool in their evaluation, they must inform the responsible editor.

III.3 Quality and constructiveness of the evaluation. Reviewers must provide reasoned, constructive, respectful evaluations delivered within the agreed deadlines. They must point out relevant published work that the manuscript does not cite. The journal will stop using reviewers who deliver low-quality, incorrect or disrespectful evaluations, or who are systematically late.

III.4 Identifying misconduct. Reviewers must watch for possible misconduct in the manuscripts they evaluate: plagiarism, data fabrication, falsification of results or undeclared use of AI. At any sign of misconduct they must immediately notify the responsible editor with the corresponding evidence.