The individuals who participate in the evaluation of the article proposals sent to Ciencia Jurídica play an essential role in the process that guarantees the quality of the publication; they assist in the improvement of the articles, becoming a basic pillar in the editorial decision-making process.

As a result of our open access policy, Ciencia Jurídica does not pay any economic remuneration to our peer reviewers, who donate their time to the process of knowledge generation and scientific debate; however, as a form of recognition of this hard work, Ciencia Jurídica grants, once the evaluation is finished, a certificate stating their contribution in the arbitration of a specific article proposal and their name is added to our catalog of peer reviewers the year after the evaluation is completed.

1. Confidentiality

Our reviewers are asked to consider the work they will review as a confidential document both during and after the review process. Ciencia Jurídica urges our reviewers not to involve anyone else in the evaluation of the manuscript (whether students, mentees, colleagues) without first consulting with the editors. The use of AI as an auxiliary or substitute for the human evaluation process is prohibited, including the use of match detection software.

Under no circumstances should the information, details, arguments, or interpretations contained in the text under review be disseminated or used for your benefit or that of others, or to the detriment of others.

Any substantial similarity between the work submitted for review and another article already published or under review in another journal (redundant or duplicate publication); plagiarized, falsified, invented, manipulated texts or data, conjecture or confirmation of the use of AI without having stated it on time, or any suspicion of a practice that is not in line with the Editorial Policies of Ciencia Jurídica should be reported to our editorial team.

2. Objectivity

Our reviewers are invited to carry out an objective review of the quality of the complete work, including the information on which the hypothesis is based, the theoretical and experimental data, and their interpretation, without neglecting the presentation and writing of the text.

The criticisms made must be concrete, as well as objective and constructive, adequately arguing their judgments, not adopting hostile positions, and respecting the intellectual independence of the author of the work.

3. Promptness of response

Evaluators are required to act promptly and deliver the review within the agreed time. In the event of a delay or insufficient conditions to complete the evaluation, Ciencia Jurídica requests that they inform our editorial team as soon as possible, either to extend the deadline and notify the author or to reassign the manuscript.

4. Conflict of interest

Following our Editorial Policies, Ciencia Jurídica asks reviewers to reject the review of an article proposal when there is a strong suspicion of identifying the author and/or maintaining a relationship with any of the persons involved in its authorship that may affect the arbitration of the article.

Likewise, evaluators are requested to decline the evaluation process when they consider that the work to be evaluated is closely related to the work being developed at that moment or to the one already published, and consider that their perspective of analysis may cloud the intellectual freedom of the person being evaluated.