Policies

EVALUATION STAGES

  1. PRELIMINARY REVIEW

In this stage, the article will be checked for formal aspects, this screening is carried out by a specialist designated by the President of the Editorial Board. If the manuscripts do not comply with the standards stipulated by the journal, they will be returned to the authors within 7 business days for the necessary adjustments to be made.

  1. EXTERNAL PEER REVIEW PROCESS

In the second stage, the content and scientific contribution of the submission are evaluated under the double-blind system (reviewers do not know the identity of the authors and vice versa), for which it is sent to two external peer reviewers along with the journal's review format.

The verdict will be communicated to the author within 60 days. The review process requires anonymity at all times. If there are different opinions among the two reviewers, a third evaluator will be sought.

The editorial, biography, and historical article are evaluated by only one member of the Editorial Board.

The article has three evaluation modalities:

  • It is ready for publication.
  • Some modifications need to be made.
  • Publication is not recommended.

Authors can inquire about the arbitration process of their manuscript at any time. Authors are informed by the Editorial Board about the decision made by the peer reviewers. If there are comments, these must be evaluated by the authors, who will inform within 30 days; after this period, the article will be considered as new on the waiting list.

Accepted and edited works are sent to the authors for review, and these will be returned accompanied by a letter of agreement 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 printing and reproduction rights in any form and medium belong to the journal.

2.1 Guidelines for Reviewer Selection:

  • Reviewers are carefully selected from our extensive database, composed of experts in the research areas of our journal.
  • All reviewers are external professionals, thus ensuring an impartial evaluation free from conflicts of interest.
  • The double-blind review process is strictly followed, where both the author and the reviewer maintain their anonymity, ensuring an objective evaluation.
  • Reviewers have the freedom to explicitly accept or decline the evaluation 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.

PUBLICATION ETHICS STATEMENT AND PUBLICATION MALPRACTICE

Integrity and Publication Ethics

1.1. Vox Juris is committed to maintaining high ethical standards at all stages of the publication process, from submission to dissemination of articles. We value academic integrity and promote honesty, transparency, and fairness in our editorial practices.

1.2. We request our authors, reviewers, and editors to adhere to ethical principles and avoid any form of publication misconduct, including plagiarism, data fabrication, result manipulation, or any other form of academic fraud. We reserve the right to take appropriate measures in case any publication misconduct is detected.

Originality and Copyright

2.1. All submitted articles must be original and not have been previously published in any other medium. Authors are responsible for ensuring that their contributions are the result of their original work and do not infringe on the copyrights of third parties.

2.2. Plagiarism in all its forms is prohibited. Authors must cite and reference sources used in their research properly and avoid unethical appropriation of ideas, concepts, or texts from other authors. We use similarity detection tools like Turnitin to check the originality of articles and will take appropriate action if any form of plagiarism is identified.

Conflict of Interest

3.1. Authors, reviewers, and editors are required to disclose any conflicts of interest that may influence their academic work or decision-making process. These conflicts may include financial, personal, or institutional relationships that could affect objectivity and impartiality.

3.2. Vox Juris editors are committed to ensuring that disclosed conflicts of interest do not unduly affect editorial decisions. If significant conflicts of interest are identified, appropriate measures will be taken, such as assigning the review to other editors or external reviewers.

Peer Review and Decision-Making Process

4.1. Vox Juris follows a rigorous peer review process to evaluate the academic quality and relevance of articles. Selected reviewers are experts in the thematic field of the article and are requested to conduct impartial, objective, and constructive reviews while maintaining confidentiality.

4.2. Vox Juris editors will make editorial decisions based on the evaluations of reviewers.

RESPONSE TO RESEARCH MISCONDUCT

Vox Juris journal adheres to the ethical standards in research and scientific publication, during the review process and publication. We will proceed to follow the recommendations of the University Ethics Committee and the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). The most common forms of ethical misconduct in publications are plagiarism, honorary or fictitious authorship, data manipulation, and attempted duplicate or redundant publication.

PLAGIARISM DETECTION

All articles undergo plagiarism review using Turnitin software. The sources consulted in the article should not exceed 10% similarity.

PRIVACY STATEMENT

The names and email addresses entered on this platform will be used exclusively for the purposes established therein and will not be provided to third parties or used for other purposes.