Peer Review Process

Each of the articles received goes through a review and selection process administered under the OJS manager. The initial study and selection of articles are the responsibility of the Director or Section Editor. She/he accepts or rejects the originals based on the scientific quality, the concordance with the Journal's themes and the temporal validity of the results. In addition, it may request modifications and make any recommendations to adjust the document to the Journal's guidelines.

After this review, the articles above will be sent within five working days for an external, double-blind evaluation, preferably by doctors or experts in the article's subject, both national and foreign.

The evaluation will be carried out as follows, depending on the type of contribution:

Research articles: evaluated by two specialist academic peers; and

Jurisprudence commentaries and reviews: evaluated by an academic peer reviewer.

The peer reviewers will issue a decision which may be:

a) Publishable: the contribution is approved for publication without changes;

b) Publishable, with reservations:

1. Approved subject to minor changes (no re-evaluation required),
2. Approved subject to major changes (re-evaluation required); and

c) Not publishable: the contribution is rejected.

If the reviewers' opinions are substantially different in the case of research articles, a third review will be requested. The Director may settle such a difference.

The peer reviewers will have 15 working days to give their opinion. The author will be informed of the result through OJS, so that he/she can make the necessary adjustments as requested by the evaluators. Upon receipt of the revised article, the Journal will verify compliance with the reviewers' suggestions and analyse the justifications for those not taken into account.

When the adjustments and modifications are considered appropriate by the Editorial Team, the Editorial Coordination will communicate to the author, through the platform, the acceptance of the work for publication.

The anonymity of authors and reviewers is ensured during the review process through the blind evaluation.