Evaluation rules

I.  RECEIPT OF THE MANUSCRIPT

-        The manuscript submission process begins when the author sends the article and the accompanying cover letter to THĒMIS–Revista de Derecho. Once the submission has been received, the Editorial Team will acknowledge receipt by email.

II.  PRELIMINARY REVIEW BY THE EDITOR-IN-CHIEF AND ASSISTANT EDITORS

-        First, the submission of all necessary and requested information is verified, including the correct description of the work and the ethics and editorial statements.

-        Second, the manuscript's originality is corroborated using Turnitin software for textual similarity analysis. A maximum of 25% matches is allowed. Manuscripts that exceed this limit will be withdrawn from the editing process.

-        Third, the manuscript will be verified to ensure it meets the formal and material criteria established by the journal.

-        Fourth, the preliminary observations resulting from the review process will be communicated to the author, who will have ten (10) days to make the corresponding revisions. Once the requested modifications have been submitted, the Editorial Team will evaluate the corrections and notify the author whether the manuscript will proceed to the next stage of evaluation. If the revised manuscript is not submitted within the specified period, it will be withdrawn from the editorial process.

Formal Criteria:

  • File format: The submitted article must be in Microsoft Word format (.docx).

  • Length: The article should be between 6,000 and 15,000 words, excluding the bibliography. This limit may be exceeded only when justified by the scope of the topic or the methodological approach employed.

  • Text format: The font must be Arial, size 11. Line spacing should be single (1.0), with standard margins (2.54 cm) and justified paragraphs.

  • Footer format: The footer text must use Arial font, size 8.

Material Criteria:

  • Thematic relevance: The article must be directly related to the thematic focus selected for the corresponding issue of the Journal. Exceptionally, articles on topics outside the central theme may be accepted for inclusion in the Miscellany section.
  • Originality: The subject matter addressed in the article must present an innovative approach or perspective. Accordingly, it should not have been widely explored at the national or international level.

  • Unpublished status: The article must not have been previously published, either digitally or in print, nor be under consideration for publication in another journal, website, book, or competition. Likewise, it must not have been submitted to any institution as a thesis, monograph, final degree project, or master’s dissertation.

  • Content: It is evaluated whether the article is coherent, does not have argumentative jumps, and has an organized structure.

  • Rigor: The tenor of the article must achieve the rigor and seriousness appropriate to an academic publication. 

  • Bibliography: The quantity and variety of reviewed sources must maintain an assertive, suitable and sufficient use, corresponding to the analysis of the article. It can be doctrine, legislation, jurisprudence, etc.

III.      PRELIMINARY APPROBATION OF THE EDITORIAL TEAM

Once the Preliminary Review procedures have been completed, the author is informed whether or not their article has been accepted by the Editorial Team. In case this first phase is satisfactorily approved, the academic peer review process begins.  

IV.      PEER REVIEW:

The peer review process through the double-blind peer review system consists in the revision of the article led by two or more anonymous reviewers with the same or superior academic degree of the author. The identities of both the authors and the reviewers are maintained anonymously permanently, in order to guarantee the impartiality of the valoration. This procedure comprehends the following phases:

A.  Identification of reviewers

The factors used to identify and select reviewers are:

  • Academic degree: It has to be an identical or superior academic degree of the author.
  • Specialty: The reviewer must be a specialist in the subject matter of the article.
  • Conflict of interest: It must to make sure that it does not exist a close relation between the reviewer and the author that could affect the objectivity and impartiality of the arbitration process. 

B.  Invitations to reviewers and arbitration phase

  • Once the reviewer is selected, the Editorial Team members send a formal invitation that indicates the article's theme and what it is about briefly.
  • If the answer of the reviewer is affirmative, that is, if accepts being part of the process, 3 documents are send: the anonymised article, a technical sheet with objective criteria for the evaluation of the respective article and a guide that explains in detail the blind peer arbitration process under which THĒMIS-Revista de Derecho is directed. The technical sheet counts with the following qualification criteria: (a) title; (b) abstract; (c) introduction; (d) quality of the article; (e) conclusions; (f) bibliography references; and (g) contribution.
  • Once these 3 documents have been received, the reviewer has 10 calendar days from the day of submission to submit his arbitration form with the review of the article.
  • The reviewer must inform the Editorial Team in case it identifies some conflict of interest that undermines the impartiality of the review. In the same way, if it considers that it does not have the academic aptitude that is required to carry out an adequate evaluation. In turn, it must keep permanently the confidentiality of the article and the review process.  

C.  Qualification and arbitration judgment

After completing the article's review, each reviewer fills an Arbitration Form and awards a final result that can lead to one of these three scenarios: 

  • No modifications required (approved)
  • Minimum modifications required (approved)
  • Substantial modifications required (not approved)

Once receiving all the Arbitration Forms of the reviewers selected, the answers could be:

  • Double approval (for both reviewers), recommending the publication.
  • Double approval recommending the publication with modifications, based on the review forms sent to the author in due time.
  • An approval and a disapproval, in which case a decisive opinion will be sought.
  • Total disapproval of the reviewers, in which case the Editorial Team will abide by the decision and communicate the rejection to the author.
  • In case of discrepancies between the judgment of the reviewers, these will be solved through the intervention of a third reviewer. If the discrepancy persists, the Editorial Team, in exceptional situations, takes the final decision as the casting vote as long as it adequately justifies its decision.

Submission of arbitration forms:

  • Once the Arbitration Forms with the due evaluation are received, the Editorial Team must send them anonymised to the author, in order to incorporate the modifications that are considered pertinent.
  • The author is given 5 to 10 days to incorporate these important modifications and submit a modified version of the article.

Submission of the Final Report:

  • After the submission of the article's new version by the author, the Editorial Team evaluates it, approving or rejecting the corrections. In case of approval, the following editing levels are continued in which a style correction is made. In this phase, the author must await any requests that the Editorial Team may make regarding any observations of the article. Once all modifications are approved, the article initiates a layout phase.

Review of the final layout manuscript:

  • It is made for the Editor-in-Chief. Once this version is approved, it is sent to the author for careful review and, if agreed, the author must send a letter of approval for publication.