1. Editorial Process and Peer Review 

Articles submitted to Iuris Dictio, whether for the dossier section or the miscellaneous section, undergo an editorial and peer review process designed to ensure the publication’s academic quality, scientific integrity, impartiality, and transparency.

1.1. Initial editorial review 

Once the manuscript is received, the editorial team conducts an initial review to verify that the submission meets the journal’s formal and editorial requirements, as well as the minimum quality standards demanded by Iuris Dictio, including thematic relevance, originality, and compliance with ethical publication standards.

At this stage, the following aspects, among others, are checked:

• The manuscript’s alignment with the journal’s focus and scope.
• Compliance with the Author Guidelines.
• The relevance and timeliness of the topic.
• Compliance with ethical principles and originality.
• Generation of similarity reports using Turnitin software.

As a result of this preliminary review, the manuscript may:

• Proceed to peer review.
• Be returned to the authors for preliminary formal revisions.
• Be rejected, with due justification.

1.2. External Peer Review (Double-Blind) 

Manuscripts submitted to the dossier and miscellaneous sections that pass the initial editorial review will be sent to at least two external reviewers who are experts in the field, under a double-blind peer review process, such that neither the authors nor the reviewers know each other’s identities throughout the entire editorial process.

Reviewers act independently, objectively, and impartially, and must base their decisions solely on the academic quality of the manuscript.

Reviewed manuscripts may receive one of the following three ratings: “acceptable”; “not acceptable”; and “acceptable with revisions.” In the latter two cases, the author must include the reviewers’ recommendations in the article. The author must also complete the Certificate of Revisions form, which we will send from the journal and which the author uses to indicate the changes made to the article. Once this process is complete, the manuscript will be accepted.

If the reviewers cannot reach an agreement, the article will be sent to a third reviewer, whose decision will be final. If two or more reviews are negative (“not publishable”), the article will be rejected. If two or more reviews are positive (“accept for publication” or “accept with revisions”), the article will be accepted and will proceed through the editorial process.

The editorial team reserves the right to reject articles at any stage of the process, always providing justification to the author to ensure the quality of the publication.

Book reviews, interviews, and translations will not be subject to peer review.

For the evaluation, each peer reviewer must complete the following form after reading the article to be evaluated: Evaluation Sheet.

For more information, please refer to the code of ethics.

1.3. Independence and Conflict of Interest 

Before accepting the review assignment, reviewers must disclose any conflict of interest that could compromise their independence or affect their academic judgment. Such conflicts include, but are not limited to, those arising from personal, professional, employment, institutional, or academic ties with the authors or the content of the manuscript, as well as a lack of sufficient subject-matter expertise to conduct the review.

If the conflict of interest involves the editorial director or a member of the editorial board, the matter will be brought before the board for consideration without that person being present, in order to ensure transparency and impartiality at all times in the review and publication of the text in question.

If a conflict of interest is identified, the journal will appoint another reviewer in order to preserve the transparency, impartiality, and credibility of the process.

1.4. Estimated Timelines

The journal strives to conduct the editorial process as efficiently as possible. Generally speaking:

• Prior to double-blind peer review, an internal review is conducted, and the decision is typically communicated within approximately 3 to 4 months of manuscript receipt.
• Manuscripts that proceed to the review phase move on to double-blind peer review, which typically takes 4–6 weeks.
• If the editorial decision is “accept with revisions,” authors have 4 weeks to make the changes. Subsequently, if the article meets all requirements, it is accepted and moves on to the next editorial phase.
• The subsequent phases in the editorial workflow involve proofreading and typesetting, as well as the production and review of the final galley proofs, which take approximately 4–8 weeks.
• In exceptional cases, if the author fails to incorporate the changes requested by the peer reviewers within the specified timeframe, the editorial workflow will be extended.

These are estimated times and may vary from case to case. In the event of exceptional delays, the journal will send authors updates regarding the status of their submission. 

Once the evaluation, review, proofreading, and layout processes have been completed, and following final approval by the editorial team, the text will be published on the journal’s website.

1.5. Confidentiality and Integrity of the Review Process  

All manuscripts received will be treated as confidential documents. Reviewers agree not to disclose, reproduce, use, or circulate the content of the texts submitted for review, unless expressly authorized by the journal.

Furthermore, the evaluation must be conducted in accordance with the principles of academic integrity, respect, objectivity, confidentiality, and impartiality, consistent with the journal’s ethical policies, the Code of Honor and Coexistence of Universitdad of San Francisco de Quito (USFQ), and COPE guidelines.

1.6. Types of submissions not subject to peer review   

Book reviews, interviews, and translations will not be subject to external peer review. These will be reviewed and approved internally by the editorial team in accordance with the journal’s editorial criteria.

1.7. Verification of Originality and Authenticity 

The journal uses Turnitin, an online platform and academic assessment tool used to verify the originality of submissions, detect plagiarism, and check for the use of artificial intelligence to ensure that the text is original and unpublished. If the text is part of previously published research, the editorial team must be notified. Additionally, key modifications must be made to ensure that it constitutes an original contribution.

Articles must present the author’s own ideas. If plagiarism is detected, the article will not be published, and the author will be notified.  For more information, please review the code of ethics.

The content of published articles is the responsibility of the authors, who have reviewed current and relevant sources on the topic under analysis.

1.8. Retractions

Iuris Dictio follows COPE's guidelines for retractions. Once a text (article, review, or translation) has been published, it cannot be withdrawn from the journal. In exceptional cases, texts may be withdrawn from the journal with the prior approval of the editorial board under two circumstances:

• There is a serious human error in the collection, analysis, or classification of data.
• An ethical violation is confirmed. For example, simultaneous submissions to multiple journals, fabrication or manipulation of data, failure to comply with research protocols, or plagiarism.

A request by an author to withdraw an article is not sufficient grounds for withdrawal, and therefore the journal is not obligated to do so.

1.9. Corrections after Publication 

Iuris Dictio follows COPE's guidelines for retractions. If an author discovers a significant error in their work, they must immediately notify the journal by sending a letter explaining the cause of the error and proposing a correction, either through a correction or an erratum. The final decision will be made by the editorial board.

If the error is detected by any member of the editorial board, the author must demonstrate that the work is correct.