Peer Review Policy

Peer Review Policy and Review Guide for proposals of estudies submitted to REDI

In accordance with the General Guidelines of the Journal (Guidelines 6.1 and 6.2), manuscripts classified as Studies will undergo review by two specialists in the subject of the manuscript (peer double-blind method), who are not members of the Editorial Board or the Advisory Board. The Editorial Board and Editor-in-Chief of the Journal thank the reviewers for accepting the task of reviewing a proposal of Study for potential publication in the Revista Española de Derecho Internacional.

When one of the reviewers' recommendations is negative and the other is positive, the Editorial Board may seek a third opinion or, in any case, the final decision will be made by the Editorial Board, which is ultimately responsible for all decisions related to the publication of these manuscripts. The decision will always be based on the manuscript's quality, its relevance to the Journal and its readers, the reviewers' recommendations, and the rules regarding copyright. The decision will be communicated to the authors by the Editorial Board.

The review process aims to assist the Editor-in-Chief and the Editorial Board in making decisions about which manuscripts will be published as Studies in each issue of the Journal, while also helping authors improve manuscripts that may be published as Studies. As stated in the Journal's Ethical Guidelines (Guideline 4), reviewers will only accept manuscripts for review when they have the necessary experience to provide a proper evaluation within the required timeframe. If, for any reason, the reviewers know the identity of the author, they must abstain from reviewing. The invited reviewer may also decline the evaluation if they feel unqualified or unable to complete the review within the allotted time. The Editor-in-Chief will not request reviews from individuals whose impartiality may be questioned due to professional, academic, commercial, personal, or other connections to the author of the manuscript, to avoid conflicts of interest that may influence or distort the publication process. Reviewers will act with objectivity, providing clear, precise, well-argued, constructive, and respectful evaluations. They will offer comments on the manuscript, suggest improvements, and recommend to the Editorial Board whether to accept, reject, or request changes to the manuscript.

Reviewers will uphold the Journal's standards and help prevent ethical violations by identifying plagiarism, research fraud, and other issues related to the manuscript. In particular, reviewers should point out relevant publications that have not been cited by the author, such as possible similarities to or duplication of other articles already published, of which the reviewer has personal knowledge.

The Journal editors will follow the recommendations of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) in case any reviewer exhibits inappropriate behavior.

The review will consider the following points, rated on a scale from 1 to 5 (1 being the lowest and 5 being the highest score):

1. The title of the manuscript corresponds to the content.

2. The title of the manuscript is deemed appropriate (clear and not excessively long).

3. The keywords and abstract are relevant.

4. The structure and development of the argument are appropriate.

5. Footnotes and citations are correct and sufficient.

6. The exposition and ideas are clear.

7. The conclusions are consistent with the developments.

8. The overall manuscript is relevant to the scientific community.

9. The manuscript represents a scientific or technical advance compared to the current state of affairs.

To assist the reviewers in their task, brief guidelines on some of these points are provided. Regarding point 4 (structure and development of the argument), it is desirable to respect the order proposed by the author unless it seems inconsistent. Regarding point 5 (footnote citations), the author has the freedom to support their claims with various prior doctrines, although reviewers may suggest sources that they believe should have been consulted –suggestions that the author is free to consider. A citation is considered incorrect if unnecessary (for example, supporting obvious claims) or does not match the text it accompanies. A citation is insufficient if it is conspicuously missing (if the author appropriates someone else's claims). Regarding point 6 (exposition and clarity of ideas), reviewers are encouraged not to interfere with the author’s literary style, as long as it is not incompatible with clarity or contains significant syntactic or orthographic errors. For point 8 (relevance to the scientific community), reviewers should avoid disqualifying the manuscript simply because its findings or conclusions differ from their own. If the manuscript is considered irrelevant, it should be noted if it is purely descriptive or lacks analysis that contributes to the knowledge of the subject. Finally, for point 9 (scientific or technical advance), reviewers should avoid disqualifying a work simply because its conclusions differ from their own. A manuscript is considered an advance if, as a whole or in part, it presents a novelty of interest regarding the current state of affairs and is well-reasoned.

Based on the evaluations above, the reviewer should recommend one of the following options:

1. The study is publishable as presented.

2. The study is publishable with minor modifications.

3. The study is publishable with major modifications.

4. The study is not publishable.

If the study is publishable with major modifications, the reviewer may indicate whether they would be willing to re-evaluate the revised work.

Please justify your review with the relevant comments, either directly in the editorial management page of the Journal or in an attached file in ".pdf," ".doc," or ".docx" format that can be uploaded. Observations may be addressed solely to the editorial team of the Journal or specific recommendations for the authors, which will be communicated to them. These comments and recommendations will be sent anonymously to the author for revision or to offer a reasoned response if they wish.

Reviews should be objective, and the comments directed to the author should be clear and based on solid and constructive arguments, helping the author improve their manuscript. Personal criticisms or offensive comments of any kind will not be accepted. In conclusion, evaluating a work is not about rewriting it because the author has not written it as you would have or because it does not support the same opinions as yours. Honest, constructive feedback on specific elements will assist the Editorial Board in deciding whether to publish the work.

If desired, the Journal will issue a certificate of your work as a reviewer for the issue/volume of the Journal.

The Editorial Board and the Editor-in-Chief of REDI reiterate their gratitude to the reviewers for their valuable collaboration.