General evaluation policy for editorial contributions

The Revista Internacional & Comparada de Derechos Humanos establishes an academic evaluation process aimed at ensuring quality, scientific integrity, and compliance with ethical principles in knowledge communication. All contributions undergo a structured and transparent review procedure.

 

1. Submission of contributions

The editorial team of the Revista Internacional & Comparada de Derechos Humanos verifies that the submission of each contribution strictly complies with the formal requirements established in the Guidelines for authors, according to the following criteria:

• Mandatory documentation: Indispensable submission of the Declaration of Originality, Ethical Integrity, and Publication License, duly completed and signed by all participants. The review process will not initiate for any contribution that omits this document.
• Section alignment: Clear correspondence with the document typologies accepted by the journal.
• Format and delivery: Exclusive submission in an editable Word format (.doc or .docx) through either the OJS platform or the official email address.
• Length: Strict compliance with the word count and file format according to its specific category.
• Academic structure: Presence of the required sections according to the contribution typology (introduction, body/development, conclusions, and references for doctrinal articles; and a coherent, flexible internal structure for the rest of the sections).
• Citation standards: Rigorous application of the editorial guidelines of the Revista Internacional & Comparada de Derechos Humanos.
• Technical information and authorship data: Regardless of the chosen submission channel (OJS platform or official email), the delivery of identity data and technical information shall be structured strictly according to the typology of the contribution:
• For doctrinal articles: The manuscript in Word format must be delivered completely anonymized, containing only the title, the analytical abstract, and the keywords (both in spanish and english). Names, institutional affiliations, acknowledgments, and any other data or computer metadata that could identify the authors within the document must be absolutely omitted. All information regarding identity and institutional affiliation shall be indicated exclusively within the Declaration of Originality, Ethical Integrity, and Publication License.
• For other contributions: The manuscript must directly include on its first page the full names, emails, ORCID numbers, and institutional affiliations of all authors, which must match the data stated in the Declaration of Originality, Ethical Integrity, and Publication License.
• Similarity and AI use filter: The manuscript is subjected to a technical screening using Turnitin's similarity and Artificial Intelligence (AI) text detection tools to identify matches with other published texts or the undisclosed use of AI.
  In the event of identifying signs of plagiarism or any practice contrary to academic ethics, the Editorial board's first action will be to formally request the pertinent clarifications from the authors, granting them the right to justify or remedy the detected findings. The contribution will be rejected when the clarifications presented are unsatisfactory or if no response is received within the granted period.

 

2. Review by the editorial board

The Editorial board of the Revista Internacional & Comparada de Derechos Humanos conducts an initial evaluation of all received manuscripts to confirm their thematic relevance, academic coherence, and alignment with the journal's editorial line. Contributions that do not strictly meet these technical and content criteria are rejected at this stage or, if applicable, returned to the authors for preliminary adjustments before proceeding with the process.

Once this first phase of editorial review is approved, the evaluation workflow is divided into two according to the typology of the contribution:

• 2.1 Doctrinal articles: These are sent to a peer review process under a double-blind system (detailed in Section 3).
• 2.2 Other contributions (essays, statutory and case law commentaries, notes, and book reviews): Their evaluation and final approval are managed by the Editorial board, which validates their quality without requiring the intervention of external reviewers.

 

3. Peer review process

• Doctrinal articles that successfully pass the previous stages are sent for evaluation to at least two external specialist reviewers.
• Double-blind modality: The journal uses a double-blind peer review system, ensuring that the identity of both authors and reviewers remains strictly anonymous throughout the entire process.
• Third opinion: In the event of conflicting reviews, the evaluation of a third reviewer will be requested to resolve the outcome.

                                                                                                                 

4. Evaluation criteria for reviewers

Those responsible for the technical review consider the following objective aspects as reflected in the evaluation rubric:

• Originality and actual contribution to the field of study of human rights.
• Methodological rigor and soundness of the approach.
• Clarity, fluency, and precision in the argumentation and counter-argumentation.
• Timeliness, relevance, and consistency of the bibliographical and information sources.
• Structural and methodological coherence of the text.
• Academic and social relevance of the addressed topic.

 

For further reference, you may review the evaluation form.

 

5. Estimated review times

The editorial process involves the following approximate timelines:

• Initial editorial review (all submissions): 2 to 3 weeks.
• First round of peer review (scholarly articles only): 2 to 6 weeks.
• Second round of peer review (in the event of conflicting reviews in the first round): 2 to 4 weeks.
• Revision and corrections by authors (all submissions): 1 to 3 weeks.
• Stylistic review and editing (all submissions): 1 to 2 weeks.

 Estimated time from receipt to publication of a submission: 1–6 months

Deadlines may vary depending on the availability of the authors and reviewers, as well as the technical complexity of the manuscript.

6. Types of outcome and final decision

Based on the academic evaluations, manuscripts may obtain one of the following official statuses:

1. Admitted for publication.
2. Publishable, subject to modifications or improvements.
3. Formally rejected for publication.

 

In cases involving modifications, authors must submit a clean, updated version of the manuscript within the assigned deadlines. This submission must be mandatorily accompanied by a response to the review, detailing pointwise how the reviewers' observations were addressed or, where applicable, presenting the technical and scientific arguments that justify why some of the suggestions were not considered appropriate.

The final decision regarding the publication of any document corresponds exclusively to the Editorial board, which will assess the soundness of both the modifications and the presented reasoned report.