Editorial Process
Pensamiento Constitucional adheres to Derecho PUCP Editorial Process Rules (https://revistas.pucp.edu.pe/index.php/derechopucp/normas_evaluacion), which we reproduce below:
1. Article reception and sworn declaration
1.1. Once the author sends the article to the journal, he will be mailed a confirmation of its reception.
1.2. If the author had not presented the authorship sworn declaration, publishing permission, and the strict compromiso of fulfilment to the norms and pocedures that regulate the editorial activity of the journal, properly subscribed, the author will be requested to fulfil with this requirement. If not, the article will not be considered as not presented.
2. Preliminary review of the article
2.1. The Editor-in-Chief will do the preliminary review of the presented article to check if it fulfils the academic and editorial ethics norms that are of compulsory fulfilment in the journal, and also to check the minimum requirements demanded (academic research article, bibliographic references, extension, key words, summary, among others).
2.2. For this task, the Editor-in-Chief can ask the colaboration of the Editorial Board members and be supported by the work of the editorial assistants of the journal.
3. Preliminary review stages of the article
The preliminary revision of the presented article has up to five stages:
(i) Application of computerized programmes and of other techniques and means of detection of authorship vices, including cases of plagiarism.
(ii) Verification of the fulfilment of the mínimum requirements demanded by the journal, related to content and form aspects.
(iii) Sending of a report of the Preliminary Comments. If applied.
(iv) Elaboration of an Absolution report of the Preliminary Comments by the author and its reference to the journal.
(v) Revision of the absolution report of the Preliminary Comments and editorial decision communicated to the author.
4. Application of computerized programmes and of other techniques and means of detection of authorship vices, including cases of plagiarism.
The application of computerized programmes and of other techniques and means of detection of authorship vices, including cases of plagiarism is oriented to set:
(i) The formal originality level of the article demonstrated by the number and importance of the textual quotations of the consulting sources, which do not have to exceed the 25% of the total article.
In general, the textual quotations of the consulting sources in the research should be short, and do not exceed eight lines.
(ii) The correct citation of the consulting sources and the absence of authorship vices, including cases of plagiarism.
5. Verification of the fulfilment of the minimum requirements
5.1. The mínimum content requirements are:
(i) The appropriateness subject of the article in relationto the content of the journal in any of its sections.
The journal reserves the right to determine the section in which the article should be published. However, the author has to give consent to the adopted determination made by the journal.
(ii) The article should be the result of an academic investigation and it must be unpublished.
(iii) The article should have suitable bibliographic references.
5.2. The minimum form requirements are:
(i) Have an extension from 7,000 words to 15,000 words.
(ii) Indicate the author institutional affiliation.
(iii) Have a title, summary, and key words, and, in general, keep to the editorial norms indicated in the journal web page.
Both the article title and the summary, and the key words have to be in Spanish and in English.
(iv) Adopt in the article the method of citation of the consulting sources set in the journal web page.
6. Sending of the report with preliminary comments
6.1. If during the preliminary revision of the article a suspected irregularity is observed that could be a violation to the the editorial and academic ethics norms that are of compulsory fulfilment in the journal (plagiarism or other authorship vices) a report of the preliminary comments will be sent that will be communicated to the author to give the pertinent explanations.
The purpose of this report is the author not to modify the original text of the presented article to the journal.
6.2. If during the preliminary revision of the article it is noticed that it is published or that it has an absence of formal originality, it will be procedeeded in the same way indicated in the section 6.1.
6.3 If during the preliminary revision of the article it is noticed that it does not fulfil with many formal requirements that, examined as a whole, show a serious neglect for the publication norms of the journal, it will be procedeeded in the same way indicated in the section 6.1.
In this case, the report purpose is that the author correct the comments, which must be done within the deadline fixed by the journal, which, for any reason, will exceed ten days.
7. Absolution of preliminary comments
The author will have ten days to make his Absolution of Preliminary Comments Report, which has to be sent in a separate document to the journal electronic address.
8. Revision of the absolution of Preliminary Comments Report and editorial decision communicated to the author
8.1. In case the Absolution of Preliminary Comments Report related to the assumptions contemplated in the sections 6.1. and 6.2., the Editor-in-Chief will examine if this report is satisfactory.
If it is, the Editor-in-Chief will determine that the evaluation procedure of the presented article continue by the corresponding analysis of its content and academic merit.
If it is not, and as the mentioned Absolution of Preliminay Comments report was not being received within the deadline fixed on the second paragraph of section 8.2. The Editor-in-Chief will communicate the author the decision of his article refusal.
In this case, the journal reserves the right to inform to the institution, which the author is affiliated to, about the observed serious irregularity, according to the norms of the editorial and academic ethics which are of compulsory fulfilment in the journal.
8.3. In case of Absolution of Preliminary Observations report related with the assumption contemplated in section 6.3., the Editor-in-Chief will examine if the report is satisfactory.
If it is, the Editor-in-Chief will determine that the evaluation procedure of the presented article continue by the corresponding analysis of its content and academic merit.
If it is not, or if the absolution of preliminary observations was partial, the Editor-in-Chief will indicate the author the existing observations, assigning him a new period of time, no more than five days.
If the author does not correct the existing observations, the Editor-in-Chief will communicate the author the decision of his article refusal.
9. Peer review (double blind system)
9.1. Finished satisfactorily the preliminary revision of the presented article, the revision process of the academic peers, under the double blind system, will start by virtue of which author and copy editor do not know each others identities, to get an impartial evaluation of the article.
9.2. The reviewers or referees, who are experts in the relevant area and that do not belong to any body of the journal, should issue an opinion that contains a critical and analytical valuation of the article under examination, to cooperate with the Editor-in-Chief in order to adopt a decision to know if the article complies with the academic quality standars necessary for its publication.
9.3. The peer review process has up to seven sections:
(i) Identifying peer reviewers.
(ii) Naming peer reviewers.
(iii) Peer review.
(iv) Sending the Peer Review Report.
(v) Removal of comments.
(vi) New query to peers.
(vii) Sending the Second Peer Review Report.
9.4 For any task, of the same nature, the Editor-in-Chief can ask the colaboration of the Editorial Board and be supported by the work of the editorial assistants of the journal.
10. Identifying journal peer reviewers
10.1. The Editor-in-Chief has to identify suitable academics to arbitrate the article accepted to peer review, in a period of seven days.
10.2. Each article must be evaluated by two reviewers.
10.3. The identification criteria of the peer reviewers are the following:
(i) Academic degree
If the author is Bachelor or Licentiate, the peer reviewer has to be at least Master. If the author was Master or Doctor, the peer reviewer has to be Doctor.
(ii) Subject affinity
It had better choose an peer reviewer who had made academic publications, about a similar subject or related to the article to be examined, on in indexed journals with a high impact factor.
If its an article related to two academic areas, it must be chosen an peer reviewer from each of these academic areas, but with study subject experience from his perspective.
(iii) Inexistance of links
The peer reviewer should not have either professional or personal links with the author. Neither should belong to any body of the journal.
11. Naming peer reviewers
11.1. Identified the peer reviewer to be invited, the Editor-in-Chief, in a maximum period of three days, will give him the corresponding invitation, indicating him the article title, the summary, the extension, the ethics norms in relation to his work and the deadline that he will have to do his work, which can not exceed twenty days.
He will be, too, the issue of a certificate that certifies the peer review, once it has been achieved to the satisfaction of the journal.
11.2. The invitation will be accompanied with the evaluation template, approved by the journal, to be used by the reviewer, among whose main items are the following: (i) originality, (ii) methodology, (iii) presentation, style, writing, (iv) structure and quality of the article (analysis of the title, summary, introduction, text body, conclusions, and bibliographic references).
11.3. If the peer reviewer accepts the invitation, the Editor-in-Chief will send him immediately the article to be examined, taking care of omitting every auhorship and every reference indication that allows identify the author, such as quotes or bibliographic references, which have to be replaced by the expression «[omitted for peer review]».
The Editor-in-Chief will also omit any authorship identifier generated automatically by the computerized Word processors used to write the article.
12. Peer review
12.1. Once the designed peer reviewer receives the article, he will have to fulfil promptly and throroughly the academic revision entrusted to him.
He also must keep confidentiality on the article and editorial process.
12.2. If the designed peer reviewer notices that he has some conflict of interest or that for any reason should abstain from fulfilling the revision, he must communicate it immediately to the Editor-in-Chief.
12.3. If the designed peer reviewer notices that he has a lack of academic competence or specialization to value the article, he must communicate it immediately to the Editor-in-Chief.
12.4. The deadline, for the opinion issue, is of twenty days.
In attention to the case circumstances, the Editor-in-Chief can ask the peer reviewer to be pronounced over a shorter period of time.
13. Possible results of the peer review process
13.1. The peer reviewer´s opinion must be included in the evaluation plan previously sent by the journal, according to section 11.2. and its possible results are the following:
(i) Publishable without modifications
But there are some suggestions done by the peer reviewer, which do not qualify as minor comments and that the author can accept or reject freely.
(ii) Publishable if waive minor comments
The minor comments should point out the need to modify no structured or no essential aspects of the article.
(iii) Publishable if waive major comments
The major comments should point out the need to modify structured or essential aspects of the article.
(iv) Publishable if waive major and minor comments
The major and minor comments should point out the need to modify structured or essential aspects of the article and no structured or no essential aspects of the article.
(v) Impossible to publish as it did not fulfil the minimum requirements
This qualification is justified when the article has a lack of academic merit or shows deficiencies of such nature or relevance that requires a radical rethinking and a complete change of the text writing.
In the same way this qualification is justified if during the peer review it is found out that the author has committed plagiarism or other serious authorship vices.
13.2. The copy editor must justify briefly his opinion, detailing his formulated comments and basing them on the corresponding analysis. Consequently, the opinion does not have to contain merely subjective opinions.
14. Conflict solution between opinions
14.1. If the copy editor´s opinions differ from no structured or no essential aspects of the article, the Editor-in-Chief, in the event he can count on enough elements to value the academic merit of the article, he will adopt the corresponding decision being oriented by the stronger and better substantiated opinion.
14.2. If the opinions of the peer reviewers differ from structured or essential aspects of the article, and it is not posible reconciling them, the Editor-in-Chief will determine if he should ask to one of the reviewers to give specifications or further developments, eventually to inform him the arguments of the other, who, however, must not be identified.
If this request of specifications or further developments was not possible, or if the replies to it will not fill the gap, the Editor-in-Chief must summon a diriment peer reviewer in the event he does not count on enough elements to value the academic merit of the article.
15. Sending the Peer Review Report
15.1. Upon receiving the two required opinions, or the diriment peer reviewer opinion when this had been requested, the Editor-in-Chief will elaborate the Peer Review Report, to do that he will consider the opinion of the peer reviewers as helping elements to the adoption of the editorial decision about the article.
Likewise, the Editor-in-Chief will take care of not revealling the reviewers identity.
15.2. The maximum period of time for the sending of the Peer Review Report is of seven days after receiving the last requested opinion.
16. Removal of comments
16.1. Received the peer review report by the author, he will communicate the journal if he agrees with them and, consequently, will make the necessary changes.
16.2. The author will send the journal a document where he will expose the way that he considers had been removed the formulated comments. Simultaneously, he will send the new article version.
16.3. If the author disagreed with some comments, or he wished to engage in an academic dialogue with any of the reviewers, the Editor-in-Chief will perform as mediator, always assuring the privacy and the reservation of the identity of the participants.
In the event of an insurmountable dispute, the Editor-in-Chief will adopt the final decision taking into account the arguments used.
16.4. The maximum times given to the author to remove the comments are:
(i) Before minor comments, the maximum time will be of twenty days.
(ii) Before major comments, the maximum time will be of forty days.
(iii) Before major and minor comments, the maximum time will be of sixty days.
16.5. If he deadline had passed for the removal of the comments, it will be understood that the author had given up and it will be considered his article as removed.
17. New query to peer reviewers
17.1. Received the removal of comments document and the new article version, the Editor-in-Chief will send it to the corresponding reviewers, also accompanying with all the necessary information to evaluate if the author has really fulfilled to remove the comments.
17.2. The peer review, again consulted, should give his briefly substantiated opinion in a period of time of ten days and must be pronounced by some of the following alternatives.
(i) Remove the comments
(ii) Don´t remove the comments
18. Sending the Peer Review Second Report
18.1. In view of the received opinions from the peer reviewers, again consulted, the Editor-in-Chief must adopt the ultimate decision about the peer review whether or not the article has the merit to be published.
18.2. The Editor-in-Chief must elaborate a final decision and must send it to the author notifying him of the adopted decision.
18.3. If any differences emerged between the peer reviewers about whether the author had removed the comments, the Editor-in-Chief must adopt the final decision, with no opportunity to summon a diriment peer reviewer.
18.4. The maximum term for the sending of the peer review second report is five days after receiving the last opinion requested.
18.5. Transmitted to the author the final decision of his article publication, it is irrevocable, unless than later is discovered that elaborating it the author had committed a serious fault to the academic ethics.
