Focus and scope

Academia XXII is a research journal published biannually by the Centro de Investigaciones en Arquitectura, Urbanismo y Paisaje (CIAUP) of the Facultad de Arquitectura of the Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México. Since 2010 it has published original, unpublished, updated, and specialized academic texts devoted to the theoretical and practical analysis of architecture, urbanism, landscape architecture and industrial design, from a multidisciplinary perspective. We invite you to contribute to the journal by sending us your research articles, we accept texts written in English and Spanish.

Peer review process

The editorial process is as follows: 

1. Submission to academiaxxii@unam.mx. It is read by the Editor-in-Chief and discussed by the Editorial Committee of Academia XXII. Within 30 days the author receives a reply as to whether or not the journal is interested in the document.
2. If so, the author is notified a) if the document requires any changes, b) if not required, that the document will be, or has been, sent for peer review/arbitration in double blind, c) tentative date for the resolution of the opinion/arbitration.
3. The opinion resolution is sent to the author.
4. If the opinion is positive, a) the author is asked to consider the observations, if any, b) editing work is carried out with the author, c) the author is given a timetable for submission (text with corrections made) which the author must comply with.
5. The author is given a tentative date in the month set for publication. 

Open Access Policy

All the content of this journal is available free of charge to the user or their institution, making it an open access journal. Users may read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to full-text articles or use them for any other legal purpose without the prior permission of the publisher or author. Academia XXII provides free and immediate access to its content in accordance with the principle of free access for the entire public, supporting the broader exchange of global knowledge.

License used

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial Underived 4.0 International License. Therefore, you are free to: Share – copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format Adapt – remix, transform and build upon the material.

Under the following terms:
Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in such a way as to suggest that you or your use are endorsed by the licensor.
Non-Commercial — You may not use the material for commercial purposes.
NoDerivs — If you remix, transform, or build upon the material, you may not distribute the modified material.

Processing fees

Academia XXII is a journal that does not charge article processing fees (APC).

Copyright

The author must sign and present a letter certifying the authenticity and authorship of the article in question, which will serve to transfer the copyright to the National University of Mexico. Therefore, this institution reserves the right to disseminate the article by any means. including magazine indexes, internet portals or other digital media, always recognizing the author's approval.

Code of ethics

Ethics and responsibilities of authors

When submitting a paper to Academia XXII, authors will verify that it meets the ethical standards for authors and co-authors.

The following is a statement of ethical principles for authors, reviewers and editors of scientific articles based on the guidelines defined by the American Physical Society and the American Geophysical Union.

Maintenance of research results

• Research results should be recorded and maintained in a form that permits analysis and review, both by collaborators prior to publication and by other researchers for a reasonable period after publication. Exceptions may be appropriate in certain circumstances to preserve privacy, ensure patent protection or for similar reasons.
• Fabrication of data is a blatant deviation from expected standards of scientific conduct, as is selective reporting of data with the intent to mislead and the theft of data or research results from others.

Obligation of authors

• Authors are obliged to present an unpublished, concise and accurate account of the research presented, as well as an objective and well-argued discussion. The paper should contain references to public and primary sources of information. Due acknowledgement of the work of other contributors to a research project should always be given.
• Authors should cite publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the work reported. Information obtained in private, such as in conversation, correspondence or discussion with third parties, should not be used or reported without the explicit permission of the researcher with whom the information originated. Data collected in the course of confidential services, such as manuscript refereeing or grant applications, may not be used without the permission of the author of the work being used.
• Authors must obtain permission from the original publisher for the use of any previously published artwork or information. Permission must be provided before such material can be published and appropriate credit lines must be included within the text.
• Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the concept, design, execution or interpretation of the research study. All of them should be offered the opportunity to be listed as authors. Other individuals who have contributed to the study should be acknowledged, but not identified as authors.
• Sources of financial support for the project should be disclosed.
  Plagiarism constitutes unethical scientific behaviour and is never acceptable.
  It is unethical for an author to publish manuscripts describing essentially the same research in more than one publication. Therefore, submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal simultaneously is unacceptable.
• When an error is discovered in a published paper, it is the obligation of all authors to immediately retract the paper or correct the results.
• The corresponding author must have the approval of all other authors for submission and publication of all versions of the manuscript. Anyone who has made independent contributions to the manuscript should be invited to become a co-author.
• Fragmentation of research papers is not acceptable. Thus, publications should be organised so that each paper presents a complete account of a particular aspect of the research.
• Criticism of a paper in a commentary or article should be professional, substantive and free of polemic.
• If any of the above guidelines are no longer true, authors have a duty to notify the editor as soon as possible so that corrective action can be taken.

Co-authorship

• All contributors share responsibility for any contribution they submit. The author offering the paper for publication must ensure that all co-authors are included in the paper, have seen the final version of the paper and have agreed to submit it for publication.
• Some co-authors are responsible for the entire paper being an accurate and verifiable report of the research. For example, they are responsible for the integrity of the critical data reported, perform the analysis, write the manuscript, present important findings at conferences, or provide scientific leadership for junior colleagues. Other co-authors may have responsibility primarily for specific and limited contributions to an article. However, all have an obligation to provide prompt retractions or correction of errors in published works. Anyone unwilling or unable to accept appropriate responsibility for a paper will not be considered for publication.

Academic ethics

Plagiarism or self-plagiarism constitutes unethical scientific behaviour and is never acceptable. Academia XXII follows the guidelines established by the UNAM's Academic Ethics programme,[1] which defines the different procedures involved in plagiarism:

• Cloning: Of entire texts or paragraphs. This is the copying of whole texts or paragraphs from another author and presenting them as one's own, without any reference.
• Copying and pasting: Of fragments of texts or paragraphs within one's own text, without proper reference to the original sources.
• Transcribing verbatim a part of a thesis or academic work for use in one's own work or article.
• Copying the summary of a book and submitting it as if one had read the whole book.
• Copy data or records from an experiment or survey and present them as if they were information from one's own work.
• Copy tables or charts with data or information already summarised and present them as one's own and original.
• Composition: Heterogeneous or multiple (as a "salad") of texts or paragraphs copied from several authors, without appropriate references, and in such a way that they make sense and coherence.
• Mixture: Paraphrasing of several texts or paragraphs from one or different sources or authors, without adequate bibliographical references.
• Paraphrasing is also included.
• Hybrid: Or text composed of correct quotations and copied paragraphs without proper references, obtained from the same or different sources.The resubmission of one's own published or submitted text or work, modifying some parts of it (titles, some words, summary, etc.), to make it appear different and original or new, without reference to its original version. (It is understood that sometimes publications are derived from previous research, but what is specified here is when the clarification is not made to the previous reference).
• Recycled: Of texts or paragraphs of the author's own, but from a previous text already published, and without mentioning the original source. For this practice to be plagiarism, the recycled text must comprise a considerable part of the text presented as "new".
• Error "404": Which consists of placing false, non-existent or deliberately inaccurate quotations from books or texts that are copied. This also includes inventing bibliographical citations or placing citations that do exist, but do not correspond to the information used.
• Replaced: Of key words in copied texts without adequate references, in order to conceal their provenance.
• Aggregation: Of a few correct quotations in a text that contains a considerable amount of copying without proper references.

If any of these are found, the text will be rejected for publication.

Peer review

• Review by internal and external researchers provides advice to editors on the publication of articles. Information examined or ideas gained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for any other purpose. Reviewers must disclose conflicts of interest resulting from direct competitive, collaborative or other relationships with any of the authors, and avoid cases where such conflicts prevent an objective evaluation.
• Reviewers must judge objectively the quality of the reported research and respect the intellectual independence of the authors. In no case is personal criticism appropriate. Furthermore, they should explain and support their judgements in such a way that editors and authors can understand the basis for their comments. They should also point to relevant published works that have not been cited by the authors. Any statement that an observation, derivation or argument has been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation. A reviewer should also draw the editor's attention to any substantial similarity between the manuscript under consideration and any published paper or manuscript submitted simultaneously to another journal.
• A reviewer/discussant should treat a manuscript submitted for review as a confidential document. It should not be shown to or discussed with others, except in special cases (with persons from whom specific advice may be sought). In that case, the identities of those consulted should be disclosed to the editor. Reviewers should not use or disclose unpublished information, arguments or interpretations contained in a manuscript under consideration, except with the author's consent.
• Faced with the challenges posed by the use of new technologies and the overwhelming amount of information, it is suggested that reviewers/dictaminers, as a way of checking the originality of essays, as well as detecting plagiarism, rely on the review of manuscripts in search engines such as Google or on tools that allow the checking of documents such as those listed below, which are freely available: http://plagiarisma.net/es/;http://www.plagium.com/;https://www.grammarly.com/; http://www.copyscape.com/

Editorial responsibilities

• The editor is responsible for everything published in the journal. His/her duty is to satisfy the needs of readers and authors, to constantly improve the journal, to ensure the quality of the material published, and to promote academic and scientific standards. On the other hand, the editor will publish corrections and clarifications when necessary.
• The editor of a journal has full responsibility and authority to accept a submitted paper for publication (if it meets the stated requirements) or to reject it. He or she may also consult with associate editors or reviewers to make a decision regarding the text. In addition, it must give prompt and impartial consideration to all manuscripts offered for publication, judging each on its merits, without regard to race, gender, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the authors, and respecting the intellectual independence of the authors. In addition, situations that may lead to real or perceived conflicts of interest should be avoided.
  The editor undertakes to guarantee the confidentiality of the refereeing process, and therefore cannot reveal the identity of the authors to the reviewers. Nor may the identity of the reviewers be revealed at any time.
• The editor is responsible for deciding and proposing the articles that can be accepted to the journal, but the editorial board will make the final decision about the articles to be published.
• The editor assumes the responsibility to duly inform the author of the stage of the editorial process in which the submitted text is at, as well as of the resolutions of the opinion.
• The editor and editorial staff must not disclose any information about a manuscript under consideration to anyone other than reviewers and potential reviewers. Unpublished information, arguments, or interpretations disclosed in a submitted manuscript should not be used in an editor's own research except with the author's consent. An editor, with convincing evidence that the substance or conclusions of a published paper are erroneous, should encourage publication of a correction or retraction.
• Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted text shall never be used in the editor's personal research without the express written consent of the author. Information or ideas obtained through peer review are confidential and will not be used for personal gain. Editors must make fair and impartial decisions and ensure a fair and appropriate peer review process.
• When the call for papers is open for several issues at the same time, after peer review, articles accepted for publication will be published with the date of receipt and date of publication, the difference between them being several months.
  The material published in Academia XXII is the intellectual property of the Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México-Facultad de Arquitectura. As part of the Licence to Publish Agreement, the author guarantees that the work does not infringe copyright or violate any other rights of third parties.
• The description of the peer review process (double-blind) is defined and made known by the editorial committee so that the authors are aware of the evaluation criteria. The editorial board will always be ready to settle any controversy in the evaluation process.

Responsibilities of referees

• Referees undertake to report any unethical conduct on the part of the authors and to point out any information that may be grounds for refusing to publish the articles. They must also undertake to keep confidential the information related to the articles they review.
• For the review of papers, referees must have guidelines for this task. These should be provided by the editor and are the ones to be considered for the evaluation.
  Any selected referee should notify the editor as soon as possible if he/she is qualified to review the research of a manuscript or if he/she is not in a position to do the review. Referees should not review manuscripts in which they have a conflict of interest. If this happens, they should inform the editor and decline to review. The same applies if for any reason referees know or suspect the identity of the author.
  Any manuscript received for review must be treated as a confidential document. It should not be shown to or discussed with other experts, except with the permission of the editor. Any privileged information or insights gained through peer review is considered confidential and shall not be used for personal advantage.
• Referees must conduct themselves in an objective manner. Any personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Referees should express their views clearly and with valid academic arguments.

 [1] "Academic Ethics". Retrieved in Ética Académica UNAM: http://www.eticaacademica.unam.mx/Tipos_de_plagio.html