Double-blind policy
The journal adheres to the double-blind peer review policy.

Preliminary review by general editor

1.1. Before being sent to blind peer reviewers, articles submitted to Ius Vocatio will be evaluated by the general editor and the technical team of the journal to corroborate if they are unpublished and original. For this purpose, the anti-plagiarism software system of the Judicial Branch Editorial Fund will be used. Regarding the originality criterion, 30% of citations are admitted as part of the body of the text, from which it is understood that 70% of the article must be original. In addition, in this process it will be verified whether the articles are in line with the journal's lines of research and whether they comply with the "Guidelines for Authors". It should be noted that during this review phase, the general editor may contact the author to resubmit the article with the corrected observations within a period of no more than 7 days.

Once the preliminary review has been completed and approved, the general editor will send the article to the reviewer, omitting the author's name and any other information that could identify the author.

 

Criteria for reviewers selection

Reviewers will be part of the journal's database. They must also be specialists in the journal's lines of research.

2.2. Reviewers must be external members of the Peruvian Judicial Branch.

2.3. Reviews will be carried out under the double-blind modality (the author and the reviewer do not know each other's identities).

2.4. The acceptance or declination of the evaluation of an article by the reviewer must be explicit, declination will not have negative consequences for the reviewer.

2.5. If the author of the submitted article is a bachelor or master, the reviewer must have a master's degree. If the author is a master or doctor, the reviewer must have a doctorate degree.

2.6. Once the reviewers referee an article, they will be given a certificate attesting to the review performed.

 

Responsibilities of reviewers

In order to issue an opinion on the evaluation of articles, blind peer reviewers must consider the following aspects:

3.1. Accept articles that take into account the academic experience and profile of the reviewer.

3.2. To send the result of the evaluation within fifteen days of receiving the article.

3.3. To keep the articles evaluated before and after the process confidential.

3.4. The reviewer's decisions will not depend on the views of the editors.

3.5. If the reviewer notices that he/she has a conflict of interest in the review of the article, he/she should refrain from refereeing and communicate this to the general editor.

3.6. The reviewer may make comments addressed to the authors and the general editor.

 

Opinion reviewer

Once the article has been evaluated, reviewers may choose one of the following options:

4.1. Accepted: if the article does not need major content changes and only requires style corrections or other minor adjustments suggested by the reviewer.

4.2. Accepted if the observations are accepted: if the article requires major changes suggested by the reviewer, which imply expansion of the information, revision of conceptual aspects or reworking of the topic or structure, the author will be informed so that he/she can accept them and send the reformulated article within a period of no more than 10 days. The reviewer will evaluate whether or not the indications have been resolved within a period not exceeding 7 days.

4.3. Rejected: if the article cannot be published for various academic reasons or the research does not meet the editorial quality requirements.

 

Ethical recommendations

5.1. Reviewers will not issue an opinion on the evaluated articles based on any type of discrimination, whether political, ideological, cultural, racial or religious.

5.2. Reviewers may not use the information obtained from the articles for their own benefit.

5.3. Reviewers must maintain the confidentiality of the content of the articles.

5.4. Reviewers may not intervene in the evaluation of articles if they are integral members of the research.

5.5. Reviewers must be constructive and clear in the comments issued in the evaluation.