Peer review process

1. Brief description of articles selection process

Revista de Derecho de la Universidad Católica de la Santísima Concepción is a double-blind peer-reviewed journal. Every work sent will be examined preliminarily by the Editorial Team of Revista de Derecho de la Universidad Católica de la Santísima Concepción, examining especially whether the article fits with the objectives of the journal. This decision will be informed to the author within 1 or 2 weeks of the submission of the article.

If a manuscript complies with the guidelines and is within the scope of The Journal, the editors will send the paper to at least two referees of the Editorial Board or Committee, or to selected referees. The guidelines for referees and the criteria applied by them relate to the content quality, relevance, scientific character, interest of the subject, whether scientific methodology was involved or not, updated use of primary and secondary literature and bibliography. The system of peer reviewed is anonymous. Reviewers are advised to follow the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers, available at www.publicationethics.org.

The final decision to accept or reject the article will belong to the Editorial Team, in coordination with the journal’s Editorial Board. Typically, decisions are informed within 6 weeks after submission of the article.

2. Articles selection process en deep

The following outline summarizes the peer review process:

a) Pre-review: Authors initiate the process by submitting the article through the Revista de Derecho de la Universidad Católica de la Santísima Concepción OJS platform or submitting by email to revistadederecho@ucsc.cl. At this stage, the Editor, in collaboration with the Editorial Committee, performs an initial review of the manuscript considering:

i) content quality, disciplinary relevance, scientific character, interest of the subject, whether scientific methodology was involved or not, updated use of primary and secondary literature and bibliography.

ii) relevance with the editorial line.

iii) compliance with the submission requirements.

iv) initial anti-plagiarism review. In the case of non-compliance with the criteria 2 and 3, the authors are informed and allowed to make corrections. In the case of plagiarism detection and depending on the complexity, the Editorial Committee will inform the authors of the rejection or the possibility of correction. If all the criteria are met, the manuscript advances to peer review.

b) Peer review: The Editor, with the collaboration of the Editorial Committee, requests the collaboration of peer reviewers considering the following criteria:

i) the peer reviewer has academic and research training and publications in the area of knowledge

ii) no conflict of interest that may affect the evaluation process.

Reviewers evaluate using the online form or word format and are encouraged to include qualitative comments or a copy of the manuscript with anonymized comments.

The evaluation options are:

  • rejected: the manuscript does not meet the criteria of relevance, originality, and quality.
  • accepted with major corrections: the article may be accepted after a second peer review process.
  • accepted with minor corrections: the Editorial Committee requests changes to the authors if their incorporation is verified the article is accepted.
  • accepted: the article may be published as is.

In those cases where the Committee deems it necessary, a third evaluator is used, whose criteria will inform the final decision.

The final decision for publication depends on the Editorial Committee and requires compliance with the established style and anti-plagiarism review.

     Authors whose articles have been approved with modifications and/or approved for publication undertake to make corrections of content, form and style within 5 working days from the time of request.

c) Step 1. Pre-Check.

i) Person responsible: Editor In Shif

ii) Outcome: E-mail sent by the editor to the author with the decision to accept the article to initiate the peer review process, or a request to change the article, or the decision to turn down the article.

The following items are reviewed in the pre-check stage:

  • Whether the article is within the scope of the journal’s subject matter and methodology.
  • Whether the information on authorship, affiliation and metadata is complete and reliable.
  • Whether the document fulfills the journal’s criteria.
  • Whether the bibliography section is of adequate size, is up to date and is comprised by recognized sources with their respective DOI links.
  • Whether the article has not been published previously in any language.
  • Whether the article fulfills the ethical and good scientific journal publishing practices described by COPE: the Committee on Publication Ethics, Singapore Statement on Research Integrity and the ELSEVIER: Publishing Ethics Resource Kit .
  • Whether there is any evidence of plagiarism in the manuscript.
  • Whether the manuscript meets minimum standards of style, spelling and punctuation.
  • Whether the article includes the required attachments, including the Letter of Statement of Originality and the Author Information Form.

Any manuscript that displays evidence of plagiarism, false information on the authors or any other ethical issue will be immediately turned down.

Articles that fail to meet any of the criteria (other than related to plagiarism or ethical issues) shall be given the opportunity to submit an amended version within a certain time limit. Manuscripts that do not include the required documentation (Authors’ Information Form and Letter of Originality) will not be allowed to move on to the review process until they fulfill such requirements.

Due to the diversity of legal and political science topics, the General Editor may seek the assistance of the Publishing Coordinator and the Scientific Committee for the initial review.

iii) Following up online: Once an article is accepted to move on to the peer review process, the status of the article in the journal’s platform will change from “Pending Assignment” to “Under Review”. From that point on, the author will be able to view the status of the process in the “Review” tab.

The submissions platform assigns a unique identifier to each article. When you make any inquiries or send an e-mail, make sure to include the assigned code in the subject line.

d) Step 2: Peer review

i) Persons responsible: Editors.

The peer review process takes approximately between 4 and 6 weeks, depending on the availability of the selected reviewers.

The article review at Revista de Derecho de la Universidad Católica de la Santísima Concepción is defined as a review by peers who provide expert advice of the manuscript’s contents (and do not belong to the journal’s publishing team). It is a double-blind review, which implies that neither the authors nor the reviewers will know each other’s identity. A minimum of two reviewers will be assigned. This promotes the confidentiality of the article and the objectivity of the review process.

The following are the peer reviewer selection requirements or criteria:

  • Minimum education of master’s degree in the field of knowledge of the article.
  • Scientific publications on the subject area of the reviewed article in the latest 2 years.
  • Not being affiliated with the same institution as the article’s authors.
  • Not having conflicts of interest with the journal or any of its members: authors, editors, committee members of administrative staff.

The selected peer reviewers will receive an invitation to participate in the review process from the General Editor or the Assistant Editor. The reviewer may either accept or decline the invitation. If it is accepted, the reviewer will have access to the full text of the anonymous article and to an on-line form to support the review process. The process will be caried out in the journal’s OJS (Open Journal System) platform or through the institution’s e-mail.

In this process, in addition to the subject matter and field of knowledge of the article, aspects are assessed regarding writing of the title; the contents and structure of the abstract; the selected keywords; the contents and structure of the introduction; the methodology presented; the level of argumentation; the results found; the discussion; the conclusions and the article’s overall impact and contribution to knowledge.

The peer reviewer will present his general comments and recommendations to improve the text and will issue his recommendation with one of the following verdicts:

ii) Publishable without changes: The reviewed version of the article fulfills all requirements and can be published as it is.

iii) Publishable with minor changes: The article requires minor changes that can be easily corrected.

iv) Publishable with major changes: The article requires substantial changes, and the new version of the article with the changes made by the author must be resubmitted for reassessment by the peer reviewers or the members of the publishing committee.

v) Not publishable (Rejected): The article is not suitable for publication. Its publication would not contribute to the field of knowledge.

In the event of any differences between the recommendations of the peer reviewers, the General Editor (with possible assistance from the Publishing Committee) will have the final word on the article.

The General Editor will issue a certificate to the peer reviewers of the issue, which will be sent to the peer reviewer by e-mail within the next month.

Any suggestions that the peer reviewers wish to share with the Editor In Shif will be well received regarding review parameters, review indicators, ethics, and reviewer recommendations. The journal’s Editor to the institutional mail Ph.D. Cristian Aedo Barrena, mail caedo@ucsc.cl

The reviewers must follow the guidelines described by COPE – Committee on Publication Ethics. Reviewers shall be deemed to be responsible for: contributing to the decision to publish, timeliness, confidentiality, ensuring objectivity standards, recognition of the source and a statement on conflicts of interest.

e) Step 3. Editor Decision

i) Persons responsible: General Editor, Guest Editor.

Once recommendations have been received from at least 2 reviewers, the General Editor will have 2 weeks to communicate the decision to the author.

The General Editor may either Accept (Publishable), Reject (Not publishable) or request additional revisions by the authors (publishable with minor or major changes). In the event the Editor’s decision runs against the recommendations of the peer reviewers, such decision must be justified.

The decision to publish may be delegated to the guest editors (if applicable). If an editor has a conflict of interest, he/she will be excluded from the decision.

The author will receive an e-mail with the Editor’s decision, which will include a summary of the comments and suggestions made by the peer reviewers and will set a deadline for the author to complete the revision process.

ii. Following up online: The editor’s decision will be reflected in a change in the article’s status in the submissions platform. If the decision is “Not publishable”, the article will be immediately removed from the journal’s review process and the author will find the details in the File section.

f) Step 4. Revision by Authors

i) Persons responsible: the Authors.

ii) Time limits: Once the editor’s decision has been issued, the author will have the above time limits to review the peer reviewers’ comments, submit the changes and submit the required documentation from each author.

  • Maximum of 1 week when the decision is Publishable with Minor Changes.
  • Maximum of 2 weeks when the decision is Publishable with Major Changes.

iii) Publishable:

A decision of publishable will be issued when:

  • The peer reviewers’ comments were positive, and the article was accepted for publication with no further comments from the reviewers.
  • The article required minor changes, which were made, and the article successfully passed a second round of reviews.
  • The article required major changes, which were made, and the article successfully passed a second round of reviews.

Once the final version of the article is received, a final plagiarism check is made, and the documentation is reviewed to ensure it is complete.

Following up online: Once the “Publishable” decision is issued, the article’s status in the journal’s platform will change to “Editing”. The author can view the progress of the process under the “Editing” tab.

iv) Publishable with Minor Changes:

In this case, the article requires only minor changes that can be easily corrected. The authors must address each of the peer reviewers’ suggestions within the established time limit. In the event the author decides not to abide by any of these recommendations, he/she must provide written justification, and the General Editor reserves the right to make the final decision on such considerations.

Once the changes are received, the General Editor may decide to issue a decision of Publishable, or may require further clarification or changes, if necessary.

v) Publishable with Major Changes:

In this case, the article requires substantial changes, following which it must be reassessed. The authors must address each of the peer reviewers’ suggestions within the established time limit. In the event the author decides not to abide by any of these recommendations, he must provide written justification, and the General Editor reserves the right to make the final decision on such considerations.

Once the changes are received, the article will be submitted to publishing review.

Once the comments are received, the General Editor may issue a decision of “Publishable” if all appropriate corrections were made, or “Not publishable” in the event the article does not fulfill the reviewers’ criteria.

g) Step 5. Correction, Production and Publication

i) Persons responsible: Authors, Publishing Coordinator, Assigned Layout Designer.

ii) Time limits: 20 business days for layout and proofreading (Layout Designer).

3 business days to address any doubts that may arise in the proofreading process (Authors)

3 business days to make changes (if required) (Layout Designer).

3 business days to publish the final version online (Publishing Coordinator).

The accepted articles will be forwarded to the assigned layout designer, who will begin the proofreading and layout process. The layout designer, through the Publishing Coordinator, may make inquiries with the authors on any doubts related to style, context or layout of figures or tables (the use of technical terms, enhancements in consistency, formula structure and symbols, fonts or missing citations, etc.)

The author will have a 5-day time limit to reply to and address all the requests made by the layout designer.

The final draft version will include the DOI identifier and the assigned page numbers (Publishing Coordinator).

The publishing team will report to the author any changes made for technical or administrative reasons within the defined time limits.

h) Step 6. Correction and Retraction

i) Responsibles: Publishing Team, Editorial Committee, Authors, Readers and Relevant Institutional Instances.

ii) Time limits: In the event of a report, 1 week to start the protocol.

iii) Documentation: Meeting Minutes, Institutional Protocols and Ethical Guidelines of COPE: the Committee on Publication Ethics, Singapore Statement on Research Integrity and the ELSEVIER: Publishing Ethics Resource Kit.

Revista de Derecho de la Universidad Católica de la Santísima Concepción is an Open Access publication, which implies that anyone can view and verify the text without limitations and at no cost. If you as a reader have any questions about an article, you may submit your concerns, comments and suggestions by e-mail to revistadederecho@ucsc.cl. You can also send an e-mail to the Editor to the institutional mail Ph.D. Cristian Aedo Barrena, mail caedo@ucsc.cl.

If you find any errors or demonstrable ethical issues, please contact us to initiate the appropriate investigation and take immediate action. If the error or ethical problem is confirmed, the appropriate correction or retraction process will be initiated.

Corrections of important errors after the article has been published online will be published separately by means of a retraction document at the end of each edition of the journal.

Minor errors that do not affect understanding of the study will be corrected in the on-line versions within 15 days from publication.

Retractions are published when the authors, readers or editors find important errors in a published article. Such errors may be unvoluntary or the result of scientific misconduct.

The publishers will study the document in question and will contact the authors and the appropriate bodies of Universidad Católica de la Santísima Concepción fore making the final decision on the retraction. To this effect, institutional protocols will be followed, as well as the recommendations of COPE: the Committee on Publication Ethics, Singapore Statement on Research Integrity and the ELSEVIER: Publishing Ethics Resource Kit, for the identification of the alleged misconduct or malpractice.

iv) Rejection rate: Percentage of articles turned down per year.

2017: 10%

2018: 20%

2019: 30%

2020: 20%

2021: 20%

2022: 15%

Upon accepting the Editor’s invitation to review the article, the reviewer must declare that he/she has no conflict of interest and will abide by the ethical, confidentiality and plagiarism standards established by the journal, which are published on its website.

i) Step 7. Publications Ethics and social control

The Editorial Team will take all reasonable measures to identify and prevent the publication of articles where a bad practice has occurred such as plagiarism, wrongful citation, or falsification of data. If any bad practice is found, the article will be rejected outright. If the bad practice is discovered after the publication, a retraction or correction will take place.

Readers are invited to report any plagiarism to the editor´s email address. Once the possible existence of a bad practice has been verified, the inclusion of the writing in the Journal’s editorial procedure is suspended. Then, the author will be informed. The term for submitting any observation is 10 business days. In the absence of a response or, after receiving the author’s explanations, the editor should decide the outcome. The editor’s decision is appealable before the Journal’s Editorial Committee.