1. General Principle
Peer review constitutes an essential component of the editorial process of the Revista de Derecho Público Iberoamericano, ensuring the scientific quality, academic integrity, and methodological rigor of the works it publishes.
The process is directed, organized, and supervised by the Editor-in-Chief and the Editorial Board, in accordance with the journal’s publicly available editorial policies.
2. Review Model
The journal operates a double-blind peer review system, whereby:
- authors do not know the identity of reviewers
- reviewers do not know the identity of authors
This model ensures impartiality, objectivity, and transparency in the evaluation process.
3. Initial Editorial Screening
All submitted manuscripts undergo an initial evaluation by the editorial team to verify:
- alignment with the journal’s scope
- compliance with formal submission requirements
- minimum academic quality standards
- absence of practices contrary to academic ethics
Manuscripts that do not meet these requirements may be rejected without external review.
4. External Peer Review Process
Manuscripts that pass the initial screening are sent to external expert reviewers, who must complete a structured evaluation form provided by the journal.
This instrument requires a rigorous assessment of:
- originality and contribution to legal scholarship
- methodological soundness
- quality of legal reasoning and argumentation
- internal coherence
- scientific and doctrinal relevance
Reviewers are expected to provide clear, reasoned, and academically grounded reports.
5. Reviewer Recommendations
Based on their evaluation, reviewers may recommend:
- acceptance
- acceptance with minor revisions
- major revisions
- rejection
6. Editorial Decision
Final decisions are made by the Editor-in-Chief and the Editorial Board, taking into account:
- reviewer reports
- the academic quality of the manuscript
- its alignment with the journal’s editorial scope
In cases of conflicting reviews, the journal may appoint a third reviewer.
7. Confidentiality
All manuscripts are treated as confidential documents.
Reviewers and editors must:
- not disclose their content
- not use unpublished material
- respect the integrity of the editorial process
8. Conflicts of Interest and Ethics
The journal has established policies and instruments for:
- identifying and managing conflicts of interest
- detecting breaches of academic ethics
Reviewers must decline participation when any circumstance compromises their impartiality.
9. Use of Artificial Intelligence in the Review Process
In line with international standards:
- reviewers must not use generative AI tools in the evaluation process
- manuscripts must not be uploaded into external AI systems
These restrictions aim to protect confidentiality, intellectual property, and the integrity of the review process.
10. Dispute Resolution
The journal has procedures in place to resolve disputes arising during the review process or in relation to published content.
Such matters are handled by the Editor-in-Chief and the Editorial Board in accordance with principles of impartiality, transparency, and academic rigor.
11. Post-Publication Debate
The journal promotes rigorous academic debate through the publication of discussion materials, which are subject to the same scientific standards and peer review procedures as regular submissions.
Debates may take place in the form of moderated forums or successive publications.
Participants must adhere to:
- academic respect
- reasoned argumentation
- avoidance of personal attacks or fallacious reasoning
The journal reserves the right to moderate, remove inappropriate content, or exclude participants who fail to comply with these standards.
12. Corrections, Revisions, and Retractions
The journal maintains an active policy regarding:
- corrections
- revisions
- retractions
in cases where errors or breaches of scientific or ethical standards are identified.
13. Legal Evaluation Standard
Given the journal’s focus on legal scholarship, particular emphasis is placed on:
- the quality of legal reasoning
- the coherence of normative argumentation
- the proper use of doctrinal, legal, and jurisprudential sources
The journal does not accept:
- purely descriptive works lacking analytical contribution
- arguments without critical grounding
- automated or unverified reasoning