Evaluation Guidelines

Evaluation Guidelines

1. Receipt of the article and sworn statement

1.1. Once the author submits the article to the journal, they will receive a confirmation message acknowledging the receipt of the article.

1.2. If the author fails to include the sworn statement of authorship, publication authorization, and commitment to strict compliance with the editorial norms and procedures of the International Review of Extradition Law, properly signed, they will be required to fulfill this requirement. If not submitted within 10 calendar days, the article will be considered not submitted and cannot be resubmitted.

2. Preliminary review of the article

The Editor-in-Chief will carry out the preliminary review of the article to verify its compliance with the academic and editorial ethics standards of the International Review of Extradition Law, as well as the minimum requirements set by the journal (academic research article, bibliographic references, length, keywords, abstract, among others).

2.2. For this task, the Editor-in-Chief may request the collaboration of the Editorial Board and rely on the assistance of editorial assistants.

3. Stages of the Preliminary Review

The preliminary review consists of up to five stages:

(i) Application of programs and techniques for detecting authorship issues (e.g., Turnitin), including cases of plagiarism.
(ii) Verification of compliance with the minimum requirements set by the journal, both in content and form.
(iii) Preliminary Observations Report, if applicable.
(iv) Author’s response to the Preliminary Observations and submission of their report to the journal.
(v) Review of the Response Report and editorial decision communicated to the author.

4. Detection of Authorship Issues and Plagiarism

The application of these tools aims to establish:

(i) The formal originality of the article, evidenced by the number and importance of direct quotations; these should not exceed 25% of the total article. In general, direct quotations should be brief and not exceed eight lines.
(ii) Correct citation of sources and the absence of authorship issues, including plagiarism.

5. Verification of Minimum Requirements

5.1. Content Requirements:

(i) Thematic relevance to the journal’s content in any of its sections. The journal reserves the right to determine the section for publication. The author must express consent to the determination made by the International Review of Extradition Law.
(ii) The article must be original and the result of academic research.
(iii) It must use appropriate academic bibliography, with at least 20 references. Primary documentary material or purely professional material (e.g., legislative or jurisprudential comments) does not count toward this minimum.
(iv) In articles with more than two co-authors, a separate document must indicate the participation of each co-author and their disciplinary competence. In cases of reasonable doubt regarding competence or the article’s content, the journal reserves the right to reject the submission without issuing a preliminary report.

6. Preliminary Observations Report

6.1. If an ethical violation (plagiarism or other authorship issues) is observed, a Preliminary Observations Report will be issued, requiring the author to provide an explanation. The purpose of this report is not to modify the text at this stage. Withdrawal of the article is not permitted during this phase.

6.2. If it is found that the article is not original or lacks formal originality, it will be rejected, with no possibility of modification to continue the process.

6.3. If there is a serious breach of formal requirements, the article will be rejected with no possibility of modification.

6.4. If the article can improve its level of originality (25%) and is relevant to the journal, a preliminary evaluation report will be sent for correction, provided the match index is not too high.

6.5. In cases of minor citation inconsistencies, corrections may be requested, provided the match index is not high.

In cases 6.4 and 6.5, the author must make the necessary corrections within the time specified by the journal, not exceeding 10 days. Any article rejected due to the preliminary report will not be accepted in future submissions.

7. Response to Preliminary Observations

The author will have 10 days to submit their Response Report, in a separate document, to the journal’s email address.

8. Review of the Response Report and Editorial Decision

8.1. For cases 6.1 and 6.2, the Editor-in-Chief will review if the Response is satisfactory:
— If it is, the evaluation process on academic merit will continue.
— If not, or if it is not received within the specified time, rejection will be communicated. The journal may inform the author’s affiliated institution about the irregularity in accordance with its ethical guidelines.

8.2. For cases 6.4 and 6.5:
— If the Report is satisfactory, the evaluation process will continue.
— If it is not satisfactory (or is partial), a new deadline (maximum of 5 days) will be given for corrections.
— If corrections are not made, rejection will be communicated. In this case, the article will not be accepted in future calls for submissions.

9. Peer Review (Double-Blind)

9.1. Once the preliminary review is completed, the peer review process (double-blind) begins: both the author and the reviewer are unaware of each other's identities.
9.2. The reviewers, who are experts in the field and external to the journal's bodies, will issue a critical and analytical report to support the editorial decision.
9.3. Stages of the process:
(i) Identification of referees.
(ii) Assignment of referees.
(iii) Arbitration.
(iv) Issuance of the Peer Review Report.
(v) Addressing observations.
(vi) Reconsultation with referees.
(vii) Second Peer Review Report.
9.4. The Editor-in-Chief may request the support of the Editorial Board and assistants.

10. Identification of Referees

10.1. The Editor-in-Chief will identify suitable academics.
10.2. Each article will be reviewed by two referees.
10.3. Criteria:
(i) Academic degree: preferably a doctorate.
(ii) Thematic affinity: publications on a similar topic in indexed journals; if the article is interdisciplinary, one referee from each area.
(iii) Absence of professional or personal ties to the author and no membership in the journal's bodies.

11. Assignment of Referees

11.1. The invitation will include the title, summary, length, ethical guidelines, and the review deadline (maximum of 20 days). A certificate of arbitration will be offered.
11.2. The invitation will include the evaluation template (originality, methodology, presentation/style/writing, structure/quality: title, abstract, introduction, development, conclusions, references).
11.3. Upon accepting the invitation, the anonymized manuscript will be sent (removing author identification and marking sensitive references as “[omitted for arbitration]”), including file metadata.

12. Arbitration

12.1. The referee will act with rigor and confidentiality.
12.2. If there is a conflict of interest or any impediment, it must be reported immediately.
12.3. If the referee lacks specific expertise, they must inform the editor.
12.4. Deadline for the report: maximum of 30 days. If no response is given, an additional period may be granted (maximum of 30 days). After this time, a new referee will be appointed. In some cases, a shorter period may be requested.

13. Possible Outcomes of Arbitration

13.1. The report (in the template) may be:
(i) Publishable without modifications. (May contain non-mandatory suggestions).
(ii) Publishable if minor observations are addressed. (Non-structural adjustments).
(iii) Publishable if major observations are addressed. (Structural adjustments).
(iv) Publishable if both major and minor observations are addressed.
(v) Not publishable for not meeting minimum requirements (lack of academic merit or serious deficiencies). This also applies if plagiarism or other serious issues are found.

13.2. The report must be substantiated, avoiding purely subjective judgments.

14. Resolving Conflicts Between Reports

14.1. If reports differ on non-structural aspects, the Editor-in-Chief will decide based on the more substantiated opinion.
14.2. If they differ on structural aspects and cannot be reconciled, the Editor-in-Chief may request clarifications (without revealing identities) or call in a determining referee.

15. Peer Review Report

15.1. Once the required reports (or the determining one) are received, the Editor-in-Chief will prepare the Peer Review Report, taking into account the opinions as inputs for the editorial decision. Editorial comments may be added based on the journal's guidelines or any obvious errors (bibliographical, methodological, theoretical), without revealing the identities of the reviewers.
15.2. Maximum deadline: 7 days after the last report.
15.3. If the report rejects the article, no subsequent modifications will be accepted, nor will revised versions be resubmitted.

16. Addressing Observations

16.1. The author will communicate whether they accept the observations and will make the necessary changes.
16.2. The author will send the journal a document detailing how the observations were addressed, along with the new version of the article.
16.3. If the author disagrees with any observation, they may request an academic dialogue; the Editor-in-Chief will act as an intermediary, preserving anonymity. In cases of irreconcilable differences, the final decision rests with the journal.
16.4. Maximum deadlines:
(i) Minor observations: 20 days.
(ii) Major observations: 40 days.
(iii) Both major and minor: 60 days.
16.5. If the deadline passes without a response, it will be understood that the author has withdrawn, and the article will be considered withdrawn.

17. Reconsultation with Reviewers

17.1. Once the response document and new version are received, the Editor-in-Chief will forward them to the appropriate reviewers.
17.2. The new opinion, briefly substantiated, will adopt one of the following alternatives:
(i) Observations have been addressed.
(ii) Observations have not been addressed.

18. Second Peer Review Report

18.1. With the new opinions, the Editor-in-Chief will make the final decision regarding the article’s publishability.
18.2. The Editor-in-Chief will prepare a final report and send it to the author with the decision.
18.3. If there are discrepancies about whether the observations were addressed, the final decision will rest with the Editor-in-Chief, without calling in a determining referee.
18.4. Maximum deadline: 5 days after the last required opinion.
18.5. Once the final publication decision is communicated, it is irrevocable, unless a serious breach of academic ethics is discovered later.