Nereis. Interdisciplinary Ibero-American Journal of Methods, Modelling and Simulation.


Statement of Good Practice

Statement of Good Practice

NEREIS. Ibero-American Journal of Methods, Modelling and Simulation

The NEREIS Journal Statement of Good Practice is based on the Committee on Publication Ethics (hereinafter COPE ) Good Practice Guidelines for Journal Publishers ( ).



The Editorial Board must seek to treat all authors equally. Their main aim will be to carry out the editorial process in full compliance with the ethical guidelines contained in this Statement.

  • Publication Decisions

The Editorial Board of the  journal is the body responsible for deciding and selecting which articles sent to the journal should be published based on the results of the anonymous double evaluation process to which they have been subject. Given the requirement of originality of the articles sent to NEREIS, the Editorial Board carries out a preliminary assessment to confirm that they are original publications, that they have not been published previously and that the text does not contain plagiarism.

If plagiarism is detected, the NEREIS journal follows COPE 's instructions ( ) for communication with the authors.


  • Fair Play

An editor may evaluate author manuscripts at any time, based solely on their intellectual content, without taking into account other factors such as race, ethnicity, sex, nationality, etc.


  • Confidentiality

The NEREIS Editorial Board must not disclose any information about a manuscript that has been sent to the journal for review. The only people with whom information can be exchanged, whenever and wherever appropriate, will be authors, evaluators, publisher's advisers and members of the Editorial Board.


  • Disclosure and conflicts of interest

Unpublished material sent to NEREIS by the author in a manuscript must not be used in the editors' investigations without the express consent of the author. The evaluators must indicate the conflicts that could arise due to any concurrent interests they may have, as well as the fact that they may not have sufficient knowledge of the subject of the research or because they may have been a close collaborator of the assessed author.




  • Contribution to editorial decisions

The evaluator will assist the Editorial Board when assuming any editorial decisions. The author may be guided in improving the content of the article through editorial communications.

  • Time pressures

Any evaluator who does not consider they have the necessary qualifications to address the subject of an article and, consequently, not proceed with the review, or who is aware that it will be impossible for them to comply with the urgency required to issue a judgement, will justify their withdrawal from the Review process by notifying the Editorial Board as quickly as possible.

  • Confidentiality



Any manuscript received for evaluation will be treated with the utmost confidentiality.


  • Objectivity Standards

In the reviews, objectivity will prevail over any other factor, following the guidelines contained in the evaluation protocol. Reviewers must express their views with arguments supporting their assessments and, where appropriate, their recommendation for publication, avoiding any personal judgement.


  • Recognition of sources

The evaluators will be aware of relevant published works that have not been cited by the authors. Any mention of an observation or an argument that has been previously used must be expressed with its corresponding reference. An evaluator should also notify the editorial board if there is evidence of any similarity between a manuscript in the process of revision and other already published work.


  • Disclosure and conflicts of interest

The evaluator must keep confidential any privileged information or idea obtained from a manuscript in the process of arbitration, and in no case may that information be used for personal gain. The evaluators must avoid the possibility of reviewing manuscripts where there could be a conflict of interests with their own work or that they suspect may be involved in a competitive process or, on the contrary, of strict collaboration with other authors, companies or institutions with which they may have some kind of connection.




  • Standards

The authors of original research papers must present an accurate description of the work done, as well as an objective explanation of its meaning. Fraudulent or deliberately inaccurate statements constitute behaviour that contravenes ethics.


  • Originality and plagiarism

The authors should ensure that they have performed a completely original work. If they had used the work of others, such references should be properly cited.


  • Multiple, redundant or concurrent publication

Generally, an author must not publish manuscripts that essentially repeat the same content in more than one journal or publication, unless so requested; the corresponding authorisation received should be clearly reflected in the footnote of the subsequent publication. The presentation of a substantially identical manuscript in more than one journal constitutes unethical behaviour and is unacceptable from an editorial point of view.


  • Recognition of sources

The work of others must be duly recognised. Authors must cite publications that have influenced the preparation of their own work.


  • Disclosure and conflicts of interest

All authors should acknowledge the sources of funding for the project, which served as the basis for the writing of the article, as well as mention any conflict of interest that could affect the interpretation of their manuscript. The conflict of interest must be studied and, where appropriate, recognized by the Editorial Board, taking appropriate measures, in accordance with current legislation, both in Spain and in the European Union and in the International Treaties that regulate intellectual property.