0. Double blind policy

The journal adheres to the blind peer review policy.

1. Preliminary review by the general editor

1.1. Before being sent to the reviewers, articles submitted to the Journal of Labor Procedural Law—a specialized publication of the Judicial Branch’s Institutional Technical Team for the Implementation of the New Labor Procedural Law—will be evaluated by the editor-in-chief and the journal’s technical team to verify that they are unpublished and original. To this end, the Judiciary’s Publishing Fund will use the Turnitin iThenticate anti-plagiarism software system. Regarding the criterion of originality, up to 25% of the text may consist of citations; thus, 75% of the article must be original. In addition, this process will verify whether the articles align with the journal’s research focus and comply with the “Guidelines for Authors.”

1.2. It should be noted that during this review phase, the editor-in-chief may contact the author to request that the article be resubmitted with the comments addressed. The deadline for submitting the revised version will be determined by the editor-in-chief based on the nature and scope of the comments provided, and will be no less than seven (7) and no more than fifteen (15) calendar days. In exceptional cases, an extension may be granted upon a duly justified request from the author.

1.3. Once the preliminary review has been completed and approved, the general editor will send the article to the reviewers.

2. Criteria for the selection of reviewers

2.1. The reviewers will be part of the journal's database. Likewise, they must be specialists in the lines of research of the journal.

2.2. The reviewers must be external members of the Judiciary of Peru.

2.3. The reviews will be carried out under the double-blind modality.

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

2.5. Once the reviewers review an article, they will be awarded a certificate attesting to the review carried out.

3. Reviewer Responsibilities

To issue an opinion on the evaluation of the articles, the reviewers must consider the following aspects:

3.1. Accept articles according to your specialty, knowledge or experience in the subject.

3.2. Send the result of the evaluation within a period not exceeding fifteen days after receiving the article.

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

3.4. If the reviewer notices that he has a conflict of interest in the review of the article, he must refrain from conducting the arbitration and notify the general editor.

3.5. The reviewer can make comments addressed to the authors and the general editor.

4. Review Opinion

Once the article has been evaluated, reviewers can choose one of these 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 you clear the observations: If the article needs major changes suggested by the reviewer, which imply expansion of the information, revision of conceptual aspects or re-elaboration of the theme or structure, the author will be informed so that he can acquit them and send the reformulated article within a period not exceeding to 10 days. The reviewer will evaluate whether or not the indications were acquitted within a period not exceeding 7 days.

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

The reviewers use the following evaluation sheet for their verdict: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1tmwecVmXpbLa8pOI5A8CpOM7Zt2zOvJC/edit?usp=drive_link&ouid=107959073283715022367&rtpof=true&sd=true

5. Ethical recommendations

5.1. The reviewers will not issue an opinion on the evaluated articles based on any type of discrimination, be it political, ideological, cultural, racial or religious.

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

5.3. The reviewers may not intervene in the evaluation of the articles if they are integral members of the research.

5.4. Reviewers must be constructive and clear in the comments made in the evaluation.