Control of coincidences, academic conduct and use of AI

Process for identifying and dealing with suspected misconduct in the investigation.

The works sent to YUYAY will be submitted to the OURIGINAL coincidence and plagiarism control system TURNITIN Similarity (2024-2025), to identify and avoid the publication of documents in which there has been improper conduct in the investigation, including plagiarism, manipulation of citations, falsification / fabrication of data, among others.

As part of the double review process, the Editorial Committee (first reviewer) will proceed to evaluate, verify, and submit the original file (without metadata) to the systems. It will be verified that all quotations are placed correctly, and the verbatim paragraphs have their corresponding quotation marks, indentation, and citation. A report of clarifications and corrections will be issued that the authors must make prior to sending to blind peers.

In documents without problems of coincidence or plagiarism, we will proceed to the search and assignment of evaluators to make the corresponding opinions if they meet the following criteria:

Percentage of coincidence (need to paraphrase)

Percentage of plagiarism
(misquotation and ethical errors)

Resolution Type

%15

%15

Communicate to the author for correction

%25

%20

Communicate with the author for immediate modification

%50

%30

Communicate to the author the rejection in the first review of the work

In documents where the coincidence is greater than 50%, it will be rejected immediately, since the code of ethics or the rules of submission of articles would not be respected, which indicates the responsibility of the author to present an unpublished and original article, respecting the rules of academic citation used by YUYAY.

YUYAY rejects any form of plagiarism in articles submitted for your consideration. If plagiarism is detected in an article already published or if there are suspicions about it, the editorial board will evaluate the complete history and give the author the possibility of discharge. If plagiarism is confirmed, the article will be removed from our website and a retraction will be published on both the website and the magazine's social networks.

Match exception

There are articles that have been prepared and delivered as part of a graduate process. These should be submitted to academic journals as a complement to your graduation process in a non-mandatory instance. These files are sent to DSpace-type academic repositories of Universities, Technological Schools and Polytechnics for their career conservation and registration policies. They generate a matching interval greater than %50. In the case of submitting this type of work that has not been submitted to another journal, but that appear in undergraduate repositories, they must include a letter of AUTHORIZATION from their Academic Unit for consideration by the Editorial Board and sent to blind peers.

An undergraduate article is understood as a work carried out in a period of not less than 6 calendar months and that has been reviewed by an academic professional specialized in tutor mode and that has also undergone a review by an academic council (according to the policies of the University, Technological and Polytechnic School).

These papers will include (if accepted by blind peers) a mandatory mention in Metadata to the Institution in which it was presented as a degree project (according to the archive) and will have the mandatory co-authorship of its tutor. If the tutor does not wish to be part as a co-author, he/she must send his/her written statement to the email editorial@jlacolectivo.com

Use of AI (Artificial Intelligence)

The use of artificial intelligence (AI) tools for manuscript writing must be clearly disclosed in the methods section of the article. Authors are responsible for ensuring the accuracy and originality of AI-generated content and must properly cite the tools used. The journal reserves the right to verify the use of AI and reject articles that do not meet ethical and originality standards (view COPE).

Policy on the Use of AI Writing

  1. Permitted Use (0-10%):

    • Description: Minimal use of AI for tasks such as synonym suggestions, grammatical corrections, and stylistic improvements.
    • Action: No specific disclosure required, but recommended.

  2. Moderate Use (11-30%):

    • Description: Moderate use of AI for generating specific sections of the manuscript, such as the introduction or abstract.
    • Action: Must be disclosed in the methods section with a description of the tools used and how they contributed to the work.

  3. Significant Use (31-50%):

    • Description: Significant use of AI for writing multiple sections of the manuscript.
    • Action: Must be clearly disclosed and justified in the methods section. Authors must provide a statement of responsibility for the accuracy and originality of the generated content.

  4. Extensive Use (51-70%):

    • Description: Extensive use of AI contributing to most of the manuscript.
    • Action: Must be clearly disclosed and justified in the methods section. Additional review by editors and reviewers to ensure content integrity and originality.

  5. Complete Use (>70%):

    • Description: Complete use of AI for writing the manuscript.
    • Action: Not recommended. Articles with this level of AI use will be rejected for review.

Example of Disclosure:

"ChatGPT (OpenAI) / Gemini or other [indicate which] was used to generate 25% [modify percentage] of the content of the introduction and the results section [interpretation, prediction, editing, etc.] The authors verified the accuracy and originality of AI-generated content."

This example has been generated using AI. This structure helps maintain transparency and academic integrity while enabling the use of AI tools in research.