Peer review process
- Overview
The Journal of Law of the Catholic University of the Most Holy Conception uses an external double-blind peer review system. All submitted manuscripts undergo an initial editorial assessment to verify their relevance, originality, compliance with formal requirements, and adherence to research integrity standards.
The journal aims to communicate the outcome of this preliminary assessment within one to two weeks of submission.
Manuscripts that meet the journal’s requirements are referred to at least two independent external experts.
The peer review process generally takes four to six weeks from the appointment of reviewers. These timeframes are indicative and may vary depending on reviewer availability and the complexity of the manuscript.
The Editor-in-Chief is responsible for making a reasoned editorial decision, taking into account the reviewers’ reports and the scholarly merit of the submission.
- Editorial Procedure
The editorial process comprises seven successive stages. The corresponding documentation and decisions are recorded and retained in the journal’s editorial management system.
- a) Stage 1. Initial Screening
Authors submit their manuscripts through the journal’s Open Journal Systems (OJS) platform.
The institutional email address revistadederecho@ucsc.cl is used for enquiries and exceptional communications, which must be incorporated into the editorial record.
The Editor-in-Chief, assisted by the Editorial Team, verifies the following:
- Relevance to the journal’s scope and editorial objectives.
- Originality and scholarly contribution.
- Methodological appropriateness for legal research.
- Quality, currency, and relevance of sources and bibliographic references.
- Completeness of metadata, institutional affiliations, and ORCID identifiers.
- Submission of the originality declaration and other required documents.
- Linguistic quality, spelling, and compliance with formatting requirements.
- Possible indications of plagiarism or other breaches of publication ethics.
Bibliographic references must include DOI identifiers whenever available.
Remediable deficiencies in formal requirements may result in a request for corrections.
Suspected ethical violations are examined through a documented procedure that provides the individuals concerned with an opportunity to respond.
An automated text similarity score does not, in itself, constitute evidence of plagiarism or research misconduct.
The preliminary assessment may result in admission to peer review, a request for revisions, or a reasoned editorial rejection.
The OJS platform assigns a unique identifier to each submission, allowing authors to monitor its progress.
- b) Stage 2. Peer Review
The Editor-in-Chief appoints at least two independent reviewers who are external to the Editorial Team and have no conflicts of interest.
Reviewers should normally hold at least a master’s degree, have relevant research experience, and demonstrate recent scholarly publications in the subject area.
Reviewers must not be affiliated with the same institution as the manuscript’s authors.
The review is conducted under a double-blind system, ensuring that the identities of authors and reviewers remain confidential throughout the process.
Reviewers receive an anonymized manuscript and must confirm their commitment to confidentiality and declare any potential conflicts of interest.
The assessment covers the following criteria:
- Originality and scholarly relevance.
- Accuracy and appropriateness of the title.
- Quality of the abstract and keywords.
- Clarity of the research problem and objectives.
- Appropriateness of the legal research methodology.
- Strength of the legal reasoning and coherence of the analysis.
- Quality of the findings and discussion.
- Consistency between the objectives, analysis, and conclusions.
- Currency and relevance of the sources.
- Contribution to legal scholarship.
Reviewers must provide one of the following recommendations:
Publishable without changes: The manuscript meets the scientific and editorial requirements and may be accepted in its evaluated form.
Publishable with minor revisions: The manuscript requires limited adjustments that do not substantially affect its structure, methodology, or argumentation.
Reconsider after major revisions: The manuscript requires substantial modifications and further assessment before a final decision can be made.
Not publishable: The manuscript contains deficiencies that prevent a recommendation for publication.
Review reports must be objective, well-reasoned, and respectful.
Where substantial disagreement exists between reviewers, the Editor-in-Chief may request a third independent assessment.
Reviewers must comply with the ethical guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and must not use unpublished information obtained during the review process for personal benefit or the benefit of third parties.
- c) Stage 3. Editorial Decision
After receiving at least two review reports, the Editor-in-Chief aims to communicate the editorial decision within an indicative maximum period of two weeks.
The decision may consist of:
- Acceptance.
- Request for minor revisions.
- Request for major revisions and further evaluation.
- Rejection.
Any decision that substantially departs from the reviewers’ recommendations must be appropriately justified and documented in the editorial record.
Where the Editor-in-Chief has a conflict of interest, they must withdraw from the evaluation and decision-making process. Responsibility will then be assigned to an independent editor appointed in accordance with the journal’s procedures.
Authors receive an editorial communication containing the decision, anonymized reviewer comments, and, where applicable, the deadline for submitting a revised manuscript.
All editorial decisions and their reasons are recorded in OJS.
- d) Stage 4. Author Revisions
When revisions are requested, authors must submit a revised manuscript accompanied by a reasoned, point-by-point response to the reviewers’ comments.
The following indicative deadlines apply:
- Minor revisions: one week.
- Major revisions: two weeks.
Reasonable extensions may be granted upon a justified request.
Where authors disagree with a reviewer’s recommendation, they must provide a written explanation based on scholarly or methodological considerations.
Minor revisions may be verified directly by the Editorial Team.
Major revisions will be subject to reassessment by reviewers or independent experts, where appropriate.
Final acceptance will be communicated only after the manuscript has been verified as meeting the journal’s scientific, formal, and ethical requirements.
- e) Stage 5. Copyediting, Production, and Publication
Once a manuscript has been definitively accepted, it enters the copyediting, typesetting, and proofreading stages.
The following operational timeframes are envisaged:
- Up to twenty working days for editorial production and typesetting.
- Three working days for authors to respond to proof-related queries.
- Three working days to incorporate the necessary adjustments.
- Three working days to publish the final version once production has been completed.
These timeframes may be adjusted according to technical and editorial requirements.
Communications with authors during production are coordinated by the Publication Coordinator.
Substantive changes made after acceptance require editorial authorization.
Before publication, the journal verifies the metadata, publication licence, ORCID identifiers, bibliographic references, and DOI assignment.
Page numbers or an article identifier are assigned in accordance with the journal’s continuous publication model.
The Editorial Team informs authors when proofs are available and when the final article has been published.
- f) Stage 6. Corrections, Expressions of Concern, and Retractions
Any individual may report errors or substantiated concerns about possible misconduct to revistadederecho@ucsc.cl.
The journal aims to initiate an assessment of the report within one week of receipt.
The procedure is documented and includes requests for relevant information and explanations from the individuals concerned.
Editorial measures depend on the nature and seriousness of the identified problem.
Corrections: Where errors do not invalidate the principal findings or conclusions, the journal publishes an identifiable correction linked to the original article. Minor errors may be corrected in the electronic version, with an appropriate record of the change where necessary.
Expressions of concern: Where serious questions arise regarding the integrity or reliability of an article and the investigation remains unresolved, the journal may publish an expression of concern to provide transparent information about the situation.
Retractions: Retractions are issued when circumstances are established that substantially undermine the reliability or integrity of the publication, in accordance with COPE recommendations.
A retraction notice must be public, appropriately justified, and linked to the affected article. The scholarly record is preserved, with the article’s editorial status clearly identified.
Retraction must not be used to address routine errors that can be resolved through a correction.
The time required to resolve a case depends on its complexity and the investigative steps involved.
- g) Stage 7. Research Integrity and Reader Engagement
The Editorial Team takes reasonable measures to prevent plagiarism, improper duplicate publication, fabrication or falsification of data, citation manipulation, and other forms of research or publication misconduct.
Readers, reviewers, and authors may submit substantiated concerns through the journal’s institutional email address.
Where an investigation is initiated, the individuals concerned have ten working days to submit observations and supporting information, unless a justified extension is granted.
The Editor-in-Chief issues a reasoned decision, without prejudice to the possibility of requesting a review by the Editorial Board.
Editorial Board members with conflicts of interest must refrain from participating in the proceedings.
Confidentiality, the presumption of good faith, the right to respond, and proportionality are respected throughout the procedure.
The journal follows relevant COPE recommendations and the principles of the Singapore Statement on Research Integrity.
- Transparency of Editorial Indicators
The journal publishes its rejection rates annually, calculated using OJS records and specifying the reference period and the criteria used to determine the total number of manuscripts received and rejected.
Historical figures for 2017–2022 must be verified against documentary records before publication or updating.
The journal may maintain a public list of reviewers who have expressly consented to acknowledgment of their contributions, without disclosing which manuscripts they reviewed.
