Evaluation standards

All the papers that apply to be published in the semiannual magazine Derecho & Sociedad go through the editorial review process, in charge of the Editorial Board, where it will be verified that the paper adheres to the authors' regulations.

Editorial review includes, among others, verification of compliance with the following rules: i) paper originality (including submission to Viper anti-plagiarism software); ii) paper extension, which must conform to what is indicated in the rules for authors; ii) inclusion and extension of title and abstract, and their English translation; iii) ) inclusion and adequate number of keywords and their English translation; iv) use of the style of citations and bibliography indicated in the rules for authors.

In the event of partial or total omission of any of the requirements indicated in the rules for authors, the Editorial Board will require the author to correct it, granting a reasonable time for that. In absence of response or non-compliance with the deadline, it will be understood that the postulation of the paper has been withdrawn.

Additionally, and regardless of compliance with the rules for authors, the Editorial Board will evaluate in this instance if the publication of the paper is in accordance with the purposes of the journal and may reject its publication. This decision will be duly motivated and communicated to the author.

PEER REVIEW

Any paper that passes the editorial review stage will be reviewed by two external evaluators, to validate its quality and relevance.

The evaluators will be chosen by the Editorial Board and the Technical Team, according to the following rules: i) Specialty in the subject of the paper; ii) Academic grade equal to or higher than the author; iii) Academic production of the topic of the paper or similar.

The review is carried out using the double-blind modality, where the authors do not know the identity of the evaluators in charge of their paper and the evaluators do not know the identity of the authors either.

The choice of the evaluator will also consider any bond that may exist between the author and the reviewers, as well as any potential conflict of interest of the evaluator regarding the publication of the paper.

The estimated term for reviewing the paper will be 60 calendar days. Exceptionally, a longer term may be considered, depending on the extension and complexity of the paper, also valuing the term that the evaluator himself deems appropriate.

The review of the paper is carried out based on the following criteria:

i . If the title is explanatory and refers to the content of the paper.

ii. If the abstract succinctly explains the actual content of the paper.

iii. If the keywords identify the essential elements of the paper topic.

iv. If the paper has an adequate internal structure and the ideas are logical and understandable.

v.  If the paper has a good writing and a style according to its purpose.

vi. Si el artículo posee una buena redacción y un estilo acorde a su propósito.

vii. If the bibliography used is relevant and up-to-date.

viii. If the amount and variety of citations and bibliographic references are consistent with      the purpose of the paper. 

Each evaluator will issue an opinion based on the aforementioned criteria, as well as a final grade on the paper, which may be: i) Publishable in its current state; ii) Publishable with modifications; iii) Not publishable. In any of the three cases, the evaluator must support his decision adequately and clearly.

If evaluators make comments and recommendations, these will be sent to the author to make the necessary corrections.

The estimated term for the correction will be 14 calendar days, however the Editorial Team may agree on a different term depending on the complexity of the corrections raised by the evaluators, assessing in addition to the term that the author himself deems appropriate.

In case of non-compliance with the agreed deadlines for the correction, the Editorial Team will withdraw the submission of the paper, being able to agree with the author that the paper be published in a later issue of the journal when the process is finished.

Only in the case of total discrepancy between the evaluators - where one of them indicates that the paper is publishable in its current state and the other one indicates that it is not publishable - the Editorial Team will forward the paper to a third decisive evaluator, who will issue the opinion final about it. The Editorial Team will evaluate the relevance of informing the final evaluator of the content of the previous opinions, so that they can be taken into account for their review, always maintaining their anonymity.

In case the author partially or totally disagrees with the observations made by any of the evaluators, he/she may present his/her position to the Editorial Board, which will evaluate the specific case and communicate its decision to the author.

Similarly, the Editorial Board may omit observations made by the evaluators that it considers manifestly irrelevant or contrary to the editorial policy. At the same time, the Editorial Board may automatically correct purely formal or stylistic issues that do not require the author's correction.

Style Editing

All papers that pass the editorial review and peer review will be submitted to the style editing process which aims to adapt the paper to the standard format of the journal.

The style editing, in charge of the Technical Staff, includes the layout and diagramming of the paper, resulting in the respective final draft of each paper.

SWORN STATEMENT OF AUTHORSHIP AND PERMISSION TO PUBLISH

The final draft resulting from the style editing will be sent to the author for approval, who may request the correction of any material error found.

Similarly, the author will be sent an affidavit form, through which he/she will state: i) that the paper is original and unpublished and has no plagiarism or similar defects; ii) that he/she authorizes the publication and dissemination of the paper in the biannual journal; iii) that the author retains his/her rights over the paper.

The affidavit must be returned signed within the period indicated by the Editorial Board. In the absence of a response or refusal to sign, the postulation of the paper will be considered withdrawn.