Review Policy
PRELIMINARY REVIEW
At this stage, it will be verified that the article complies with the formal aspects. This screening is carried out by a specialist appointed by the president of the Editorial Board. If the manuscript does not comply with the journal's guidelines, it will be returned to the authors within a maximum period of 7 working days for the necessary adjustments to be made.
EXTERNAL PEER REVIEW PROCESS
The review of the content and scientific contribution of the submission is carried out by two external peers under the double-blind system (the reviewers do not know the identity of the authors and vice versa), who issue their verdict in the journal's review format. The verdict will be communicated to the author within a maximum period of 60 days. The review process requires anonymity at all times. If there are differing opinions between the two reviewers, a third reviewer will be sought. The editorial, the profile, and the historical article are evaluated only by a member of the Editorial Board.
The review of the article concludes as follows:
- It is ready for publication.
- Some modifications need to be made.
- Publication is not recommended.
The journal guarantees that no article will be published unless it has been reviewed and favorably recommended by two reviewers.
Authors may inquire at any time about the arbitration process of their manuscript. Authors are informed of the decision made by the reviewers. If observations are made, these must be addressed by the authors, who will respond within a maximum period of 30 days; after this period, the article will be considered new on the waiting list.
Accepted and edited works are sent to the authors for review, and they must return them accompanied by their approval for publication in the respective issue of the journal, within 30 days.
The opinions and data contained in this journal are the responsibility of the authors. If a work is accepted for publication, the rights to print and reproduce by any form and means belong to the journal.
Selection of Reviewers:
- Reviewers are carefully selected from our extensive database, composed of experts in the research areas of our journal.
- All reviewers are external professionals, thus guaranteeing an impartial and conflict-free evaluation.
- The review process strictly follows the double-blind modality, where both the author and the reviewer maintain their anonymity, ensuring an objective evaluation.
- Reviewers have the freedom to explicitly accept or decline the review of an article. The decision to decline will have no negative impact on their relationship with the journal.
- As a token of appreciation for their contribution, reviewers are provided with a certificate validating their participation in the article review process.
PROCESS FOR RESEARCH MISCONDUCT
The journal Vox Juris adheres to current ethical standards in scientific research and publication during the review and publication process. The recommendations of the University Ethics Committee and the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) will be followed. The most common forms of ethical misconduct in publications are plagiarism, honorary or fictitious authorship, data manipulation, and the attempt to duplicate or redundant publication.
PLAGIARISM DETECTION
All articles undergo an anti-plagiarism review using Turnitin software. The sources consulted in the article should not exceed 10% similarity.
PRIVACY STATEMENT
The names and email addresses entered in this platform will be used exclusively for the purposes stated therein and will not be provided to third parties or used for other purposes.
