The journal Legebiltzarreko aldizkaria-LEGAL-Revista del Parlamento Vasco submits for evaluation the original manuscripts received for publication in the Articles section, using a peer review system where the papers are evaluated by at least two external experts.
Peer review has two main functions:
- It acts as a filter and determines the validity, importance and novelty of the work, to guarantee the originality of what is published.
- It improves the quality of the research submitted for publication by giving the reviewers the opportunity to propose improvements.
The evaluation process is anonymous. The reviewer receives the original manuscript blind; they do not know the identity and home institutions of the author of the manuscript. The reviewers must also keep their identity anonymous for those who sign the article.
The reviews will be carried out by people outside the publishing entity.
In order to optimize the external review process at LEGAL, the following are the general guidelines to be followed by those reviewing manuscripts for our journal.
Acceptance of the review
Acceptance: in case of acceptance, it is essential to comply with the deadlines established for the completion of the review (four weeks from receipt of the manuscript).
Rejection: if the reviewer does not accept the assignment, the journal's secretariat must be informed within a maximum period of five days. It will be useful to suggest to the editor one or more additional expert(s) who may be appropriate for the evaluation of the manuscript in question.
In any case, the reviewer will not accept the assignment if there is a conflict of interest, i.e. if he/she has collaborated directly or indirectly with the research to be reviewed or if he/she is related to the author by blood or affinity, or if he/she is a friend or manifest enemy of the author.
Ethical aspects to be complied with by the persons in charge of the evaluation:
- The manuscript is a confidential document until potential publication. Therefore, its contents or any aspect related to the evaluation must not be shared with third parties. The only authorized interlocution for any question related to the evaluation process will take place with the editors or publishers of LEGAL.
Conduct of the evaluation
The reviewers will issue a report on the interest and quality of the original, and on whether it should be published or not, which will be taken into consideration by the Editorial Board. To do so, they will have a period of four weeks.
If the two evaluations requested are openly discrepant, a third evaluation may be requested.
Following the evaluation reports, the external reviewers will recommend one of the following alternatives:
- Publication of the study or research.
- Publication after correction of defects of form (minor changes) and/or substance (major changes).
- Non-publication, if the quality is manifestly insufficient, or the defects are of such a nature as to make their correction difficult.
The report should also include comments for the editor and comments for the persons signing the work, taking into account the following recommendations:
- It is advisable to organize comments into major and minor comments. Major comments refer to important limitations in the design or content of the work, while minor comments include issues that are easier to resolve, for example, structural or editorial problems in the text.
- It is important to substantiate each, and every comment raised, whether based on the specific contents of the manuscript or when they are based on other information, for example evidence from previous studies.
- Finally, a respectful and constructive style should always be used in comments to authors.
- Reviewers will receive the evaluation report form together with the manuscript.
Communication of the result of the evaluation to the Editorial Board
The editorial decision on the manuscript is the ultimate responsibility of the editor, who will rely on the evaluation reports, considering both the comments and suggestions of the external reviewers and the journal's own editorial criteria. In view of all this, the Editorial Board will decide:
- Approve the original for publication.
- To publish it with the modifications suggested by the reviewers.
- To reject its publication.
Communicate the result to the signatory or signatories
The decision on the publication of the work will be communicated to the authors by e-mail.
Depending on the result of the evaluation, the signatory(s) will have to make changes to the article before the article is finally approved.