Publishing process

Review process. The manuscripts will undergo a strict system of peer review that will be supervised by the editorial team. They will inform the authors about the reception of the manuscripts, keep a record of the review process and inform the authors of the decision of the reviewers. The review process will be conducted by peer reviewers external to DCS and specialists in the discipline or subject of the manuscript appointed by the editors or editorial board. Each manuscript will be reviewed by at least two peers and in case of serious discrepancies between these evaluations, it will undergo a third assessment. The review process will be double-blind, meaning that the reviewers ignore the identity of the author, and vice versa. The identity of the reviewers will only be released once the review process of the whole volume of the journal is completed.

Editorial decisions. The editorial team will have the power to determine that a manuscript should not be subjected to the review process in the following cases:

  1. It is out of the editorial scope or lacks relevance for the purpose of DCS.
  2. Its fails to comply with the instructions for authors.
  3. It is clear that the quality of the manuscript is insufficient.

Conflicts of interest. The editors or editorial board will consider any conflicts of interest that could affect the reviewers at the time of appointing them.

Standards for the review process. The reviewers shall determine whether the manuscript:

  1. Develops the author’s own original
  2. Sets a context in which its arguments can be duly understood. DCS is a general journal and therefore the authors should assume an interdisciplinary academic audience. Therefore, complex concepts and special terminology should be explained carefully.
  3. Presents the ideas and arguments with sufficient clarity, order and coherence.
  4. Its writing is intelligible.
  5. Considers current and relevant
  6. It is overall a contribution to the knowledge of the legal phenomenon.

Review report. The reviewers will inform the editorial team if the manuscript may or may not be published. For these purposes, the reviewers must use one of the following three categories:

  1. The manuscript can be published without modification
  2. The manuscript can be published with ‘minor’ or ‘substantial’ changes. In these cases, the reviewers will try to state clearly the precise aspects that require modifications. Especially when substantial changes are requested, authors should take criticism and comments seriously and make the fullest possible revision of their manuscript. For this reason, there is no time limit for resubmission and to answer the reviewers’ comments. The work must be resubmitted and corrections to the problems observed by the reviewer assessed by the editorial team of DCS.

The manuscript cannot be published. In this case, DCS will make an effort to provide the author with as much information about his work as possible. The reports of reviewers are expected not only to clearly explain the reasons for rejection but also to deliver information that might assist authors in future research and publication.