Focus and Scope

Ars Brevis is an annual publication with an interdisciplinary character for the Ramon Llull-Blanquerna Chair (Ramon Llull University), and collects studies and articles in the fields of anthropology, ethics, philosophy and theology.

Nature of the Annual and editorial profile. The register of the Annual is deliberately academic and scientific, but other texts aiming at disseminating thinking from another perspective are also included. The aim of this Annual is to present research in the field of thinking from an interdisciplinary and global point of view, with a mainly pedagogical character, at the service of learners. The editorial profile of Ars Brevis is open, without ideological restrictions, and intends to be another editorial means to promote a sound presentation of ideas in order to enrich dialogue.

Formal characteristics. Ars Brevis is addressed to all those readers interested in anthropology, ethics, philosophy and theology from a perspective of scientific rigour and research at the university level; also to general audiences, with some qualifications, including specialists in other disciplines. The Annual is divided into three sections: Studies –main part of the journal- with a series of articles and studies; then the section Monograph. Finally, the section Reviews, which includes book reviews. Ars Brevis publishes an issue per year, with an approximate length of 300 pages.

Ars Brevis declares the originality and unpublished character of articles published in the journal. It also has the external evaluation collaboration outside the publishing company and the publishing institution.

Ars Brevis is indexed in the following databases: CARHUS Plus+, Dialnet and DICE.

 

Open Access Policy

The journal Ars Brevis is published under Creative Commons license Attribution - NonCommercial - NoDerivatives (by-nc-nd): Commercial use of the original work or the generation of derivative works is not permitted.

© The author.

Exclusive publishing rights: Càtedra Ramon Llull Blanquerna – URL

Manuscript submission

The correspondence author must electronically submit the manuscript (arsbrevis@blanquerna.edu) following the steps described at publication rules.

Publication ethics and malpractice statement (PEMS)

Ars Brevis is committed to meeting and upholding standards of ethical behaviour at all stages of the publication process. We follow closely the recommendations of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) that sets standards and provide guidelines for best practices in order to meet these requirements. Below is a summary of our key expectations of editors, peer-reviewers, and authors.

1. Editors' responsibilities

1.1. Publication decisions and fair play

The editor-in-chief or invited editor, guided by the editorial policy and taking into account the reviewers’ comments and recommendations, is responsible for deciding which of the papers submitted to the journal will be published. The editors will evaluate manuscripts in a fair play way without regard to the authors' race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy. The decision will be based on the paper’s importance, originality and clarity, and the study’s validity and its relevance to the journal's scope. Current legal requirements regarding libel, copyright infringement, and plagiarism should also be considered.

1.2. Confidentiality

The editors and editorial staff must not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, editorial advisors or the publisher, as appropriate.

1.3. Disclosure and conflict of interest

Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in an editor's own research without the express written consent of the author. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Editors should recuse themselves (i.e. should ask a co-editor, associate editor or other member of the editorial board to review and consider instead) from considering manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or (possibly) institutions connected to the papers. Editors should require all contributors to disclose relevant competing interests and publish corrections if competing interests are revealed after publication. If needed, other appropriate action should be taken, such as the publication of a retraction or expression of concern.

2. Reviewers' responsibilities

Peer-review assists the editor-in-chief of the journal in making editorial decisions and, through the editorial communications with the author, may also assist the author in improving the manuscript

2.1. Promptness

Any selected referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the editor and withdraw from the review process.

2.2. Confidentiality

Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be disclosed to or discussed with others except as authorized by the editor.

2.3. Standards of objectivity

Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Referees should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.

2.4. Acknowledgement of sources

Reviewers should identify cases in which relevant published work referred to in the paper has not been cited in the reference section. They should point out whether observations or arguments derived from other publications are accompanied by the respective source. Reviewers will notify the editor of any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge.

2.5. Disclosure and conflict of interest

Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions associated with the papers

3. Duties of authors

3.1. Reporting standards

Authors of reports of original research should present an accurate account of the work performed as well as an objective discussion of its significance. Underlying data should be represented accurately in the paper. A paper should contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behaviour and are unacceptable. Review and professional publication articles should also be accurate and objective, and editorial 'opinion' works should be clearly identified as such.

3.2. Data access and retention

Authors may be asked to provide the raw data in connection with a paper for editorial review, and should in any event be prepared to retain such data for a reasonable time after publication.

3.3. Originality and plagiarism

The authors should ensure that they have written entirely original works, and if the authors have used the work and/or words of others,  that these have been appropriately cited or quoted.

3.4. Multiple, redundant or concurrent publication

An author should not publish manuscripts describing essentially the same research in more than one journal or primary publication. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behaviour and is unacceptable. In general, an author should not submit a previously published paper for consideration in another journal.

3.5. Acknowledgement of sources

Proper acknowledgment of the work of others must always be given. Authors should cite publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work.

3.6. Authorship of the paper

Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution or interpretation of the reported study. All those who have made significant contributions should be listed as co-authors. Where there are others who have participated in certain substantive aspects of the research project, they should be acknowledged or listed as contributors. The corresponding author should ensure that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the paper and have agreed to its submission for publication.

3.7. Hazards and human or animal subjects

Authors should ensure that any studies involving human or animal subjects conform to national, local and institutional laws and requirements and confirm that approval has been sought and obtained where appropriate. Authors should obtain express permission from human subjects and respect their privacy. Authors might be asked to include a statement in the manuscript that informed consent was obtained for experimentation with human subjects.

3.8. Disclosure and conflicts of interest

All authors should disclose in their manuscript any financial or other substantive conflict of interest that might be construed to influence the results or interpretation of their manuscript. All sources of financial support for the project should be disclosed.

3.9. Fundamental errors in published works

When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in his/her own published work, it is the author's obligation to promptly notify the journal editor or publisher and cooperate with the editor to retract or correct the paper. If the editor or the publisher learns from a third party that a published work contains a significant error, it is the obligation of the author to promptly retract or correct the paper or provide evidence to the editor of the correctness of the original paper.

4. Publisher’s confirmation

In cases of alleged or proven scientific misconduct, fraudulent publication or plagiarism the publisher, in close collaboration with the Editors-in-Chief, will take all appropriate measures to clarify the situation and to amend the article in question. This includes the prompt publication of an erratum or, in the most severe cases, the complete retraction of the affected work