Evaluation standards

Stages of the editorial process

Receipt of goods and verification of the required documentation

When the author submits his/her article to the Journal, the Editor-in-Chief will proceed to verify that the required documentation has been attached. If the author has omitted this step, he/she will be required to comply. If this is not done, the article will not be considered as not submitted.

Preliminary review stage of the articles

1. Verification of compliance with minimum requirements (form and substance).

Once the article submission has been accepted, the Editor in Chief will proceed to check that it complies with the minimum requirements of form and substance. These are referred to compliance with the ethical-academic and editorial standards of IUS ET VERITAS. For this evaluation, the Editor in Chief may request the opinion of the members of the Editorial Committee.

If compliance is not verified, the article will be rejected and the decision will be communicated to the author.

2. Detection of similarities and Report of observations on preliminary irregularities

If compliance with the requirements indicated in the previous point has been verified, the Editor in Chief will make use of the Turnitin tool, as a method for detecting similarity and possible plagiarism.

This tool is oriented to establish the percentage of formal originality of the article, which is evidenced in the report provided by the tool. The similarity of textual citations cannot exceed 25% of the total of the article.

IUS ET VERITAS Journal does not make the decision solely based on the result of the percentage count issued by this tool. Therefore, if the article exceeds 25% of similarity, but it is observed that: (i) it is relevant for the purposes of the Journal, (ii) it can be modified to comply with the percentage limit, and (iii) the initial degree of similarity is not very high, a report of observations on the preliminary irregularities of the article will be sent to the author so that it can be corrected.

The deadline for such correction may not exceed 2 weeks. Otherwise, the article will be rejected and the author will be informed of the decision.

3. Observation and editorial decision communicated to the author.

Once the author submits the corrected article as specified in the report of observations on preliminary irregularities, the Editor-in-Chief will evaluate whether the article satisfies the observations indicated.

If so, the Editor-in-Chief will inform the author that the article will continue in the corresponding evaluation procedure.

If not, the article will be rejected and the author will be informed of the decision.

Stage of the referee evaluation of the articles

Once the preliminary review stage of the articles is concluded, the Editorial Team will carry out the process of arbitral review of the article under the double-blind academic peer review system. This is characterized by the mutual ignorance of identities between the author and the peer reviewers, with the objective of obtaining an impartial evaluation of the article.

The peer review process is followed as follows:

1. Identification and appointment of arbitrators

The Editorial Team will identify two suitable experts for the relevant area of each article, according to academic degree, thematic affinity and lack of conflict of interest with the author or the Journal.

The Editorial Team will send the corresponding invitation to the identified referees, indicating the thematic axis of the article, the ethical-editorial process of their work and the deadline they will have to perform this task, which may not exceed 15 calendar days.

Once the referee accepts the appointment, the article to be reviewed and the Referee Evaluation Guide, approved by IUS ET VERITAS, will be sent to the referee.

The article will not contain any reference to the identity of the author and will omit any indication that would allow his or her identification. Omissions made by the Editorial Team will be replaced by the expression "[omitted for refereeing]".

The Referee Evaluation Guide contains, among its main items, the evaluation of the following:

• That the work does not present contents and/or results that appear in another work already published.
• That the title is explanatory and fits the content of the text.
• That the abstract contains the objective or purpose of the research, and that it is sufficient to read it in order to have a panoramic view of the work.
• That the text and its divisions have a coherent structure and development, and research rigor.
• That the quotations used are pertinent.
• That the conclusions are transmitted in a clear and orderly manner, according to the arguments presented.

 

2. Arbitration

The arbitration shall be conducted by the appointed arbitrators within a period not exceeding 15 calendar days.

The arbitrator shall maintain complete confidentiality regarding the article and the process.

If the referee notices that he/she has a conflict of interest or that, for other reasons, he/she cannot review the article, he/she must immediately inform the Editorial Team.

According to the circumstances of each case, the Editorial Team may request the referee to submit his or her results in a shorter period of time.

3. Possible outcomes of the Referee Guide for the articles

The decision issued by the referees may have different results with respect to the article:

• To publish it without modifications
• To publish it after incorporating the modifications specified in the report
• Reject it without modifications

The referee is free to indicate recommendations or modifications to ensure a high quality standard.

The referee must justify his/her opinion, detailing the observations (if any).

4. Settlement of disputes

If the results of the referees differ on formal and non-structural aspects, the Editorial Team may take a decision based on the assessment of the available results.

If the results of the referees differ on substantive and/or structural aspects, without the possibility of conciliation, the Editorial Team will seek the assessment of a third arbitrator, who will be informed of the observations of the original peers, without revealing their identity. Once this new evaluation has been obtained and having sufficient elements, the Editorial Team will make the corresponding decision.

5. Issuance of Arbitration Report

At the conclusion of the previous sub-stages, the Editorial Team will prepare the Referee Report for each article, and will send it to the authors.

If the result of the arbitration report is the rejection of the article, the Editorial Team will not accept subsequent modifications to the article.

6. Survey of observations

The Editorial Team will give the authors a maximum of 21 days to remove the observations contained in the Refereed Report.

The author must submit to the Journal the final version of the article with the pertinent modifications. If the author disagrees with any of the observations, he/she may state his/her reasons in a document to be sent to the Editorial Team, together with the new version of the article.

Once the deadline for issuing the observations has expired, the Editorial Team will send a reminder to the author, in which it may grant him/her no more than 10 days for their remission.

Article editing and layout stage

Once the referee evaluation stage is completed, and if the author has submitted the final version of the article within the indicated deadline, the Editorial Team will make the decision to publish it.
Once this has been done, the author will be informed of the decision, and the article will enter the editing and layout stage.