Author Guidelines
Papers should be written in English or Spanish.
The articles approved will be published in their original language.
The first page must include the following information: paper title, name, affiliation of the author(s), e-mail, a summary of no more than 100 words, and key words. Summary and key words should be written in English and Spanish, and references should be listed at the end of the paper alphabetically. The Chicago Manual Style (http://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/home.html) is the citation guide of the Journal of Public Law.
The texts must be sent in compliance with the following requirements: font Georgia, size 12, single line spacing, leaving a space between paragraphs and titles, in Spanish or English. The page should be letter size, in justified alignment, respecting an upper, lower, right and left margin of 2 centimeters, having an aproximated extension between 6,000 and 15,000 words, including bibliography and footnotes. The texts must be presented in format: .doc, .docx, .pdf, or another common compatibility.
References should be quoted as the following examples: Text: a) Book of one author or editor: (Cremades, 2007: 128) b) Book of two authors: (Cordero y Aldunate, 2013: 49) c) Book of three or more authors: (Barnes et al., 1999: 118-19). d) Periodical: (Zúñiga, 2001: 214) e) Article in an online journal: (Acosta, 2016: 16).
Bibliography: a) Book of one author or editor: Cremades, Javier (2007). Micropoder. La fuerza del ciudadano en la era digital. Madrid: Espasa.. b) Book of two authors: Cordero, Eduardo y Eduardo Aldunate (2013). Estudios sobre el sistema de fuentes en el Derecho chileno. Santiago: Legalpublishing/Thomson Reuters. c) Book of three or more authors: Barnes, Peter, Chris Dibona, Sam Ockman y Mark Stone (1999). Voi¬ces from the Open Source Revolution. Nueva York: O'Reilly Me¬dia. d) Periodical: Zúñiga, Francisco (2001). «Apostillas: Ley y reglamento en la Ju-risprudencia del Tribunal Constitucional (de la germanización al practicismo)». Revista Ius et Praxis, 7 (2): 209-257. e) Article in an online journal:Acosta, Paola (2016). «Sobre las relaciones entre el derecho internacional y el derecho interno».Estudios Constitucionales.vol.14, n.1 [citado 2016-01-11], pp.15-60. Disponible en: . ISSN 0718-5200. http://dx.doi.org/10.4067/S0718-52002016000100002.
OTHER RECOMMENDATIONS OF STYLE
The use of italics must be limited to the foreign language words and titles of works. Exceptionally, they can be used to give emphasis to a word or phrase. • Short appointments must be included inside the text and «enclose it in quotes», indicating the source or reference in parentheses. Extensive quotations of four or more lines must be separated by paragraphs. Charts, tables, and graphics inserted in the text must be numbered, with title and with mention of the source, if it were the case. As a general rule, be careful with the use of abbreviations or referencial terms in latin as idem, ibid. and op.cit
GRAPHIC CONTENT, CHARTS AND DIAGRAMS IN ARTICLES
Graphic content sent may contain images, pictures, figures or other things alike, which must be perfectly clear and be a part of the documents content. Authors may include up to a maximum of 20 graphic elements in total. All graphic material must be inserted in the text document, at the approximate location where it is requested to go. Also, it is mandatory to attach it in a separate document from the text through the website of the Journal, and have a minimum resolution of 250 dpi/ppp in tiff o jpg format. Each graphic element must be numbered consecutively according to its type, identifying it through an explanatory description as the title of the image, and point the source in each case. In the case of charts, graphs or diagrams, these must be made through the text processor with which the article is being written and be included in the body of the work. Because of this, these elements must not be sent independently or in image format.
CHARGES FOR PUBLICATION
Revista de Derecho Público does not charge any fee for evaluating and/or publishing the contributions it receives.
The Public Law Review, as an integral part of the evaluation process in the same suitability examination (formal analysis) of the manuscripts and before being assigned for peer evaluation, carries out an exhaustive scrutiny to verify possible coincidences or plagiarism through the use . of the Turnitin software, thereby ensuring the originality of the published works.
Peer review (double-blind) Manuscripts must meet all the selection criteria specified in the terms of reference to pass the first phase of editorial review. Once they pass it, they are subjected to peer evaluation (double blind). The editorial team will contact the potential evaluators -depending about the manuscript-, who will make up the Scientific Committee in the volume to be published. For each manuscript, a minimum of two evaluators will be assigned. The process called "double blind" consists of the authors not knowing to which peer evaluator their article was assigned (the anonymity of the same is indispensable) and, in the same way, the peer evaluators will not know who they are evaluating, the latter to avoid conflict of interest. Evaluators • The evaluators are chosen by the team and the Editorial Committee and must be external to the publishing entity. • Evaluators must be rigorous in the evaluation of the articles submitted to their opinion. • Evaluators must inform the editorial team in the event of a conflict of interest so that it can make the change of evaluator in time and continue with due process. • Evaluators should clearly explain their assessments of the articles submitted to them, duly reviewing the evaluation format. • They must indicate if they clearly find, or have suspicions, of plagiarism (or self-plagiarism), duplicate publications and / or falsification or improper manipulation of data. The selection of evaluators is carried out considering their experience and field of knowledge; that is, the articles are evaluated by researchers of recognized trajectory that demonstrate topicality in their academic production (articles published recently, at least in the last five years) and their expertise in the subject. Similarly, Revista de Derecho Público, from its team and Editorial Committee, will seek that the evaluators are people outside the institution. Evaluation process The evaluation of the manuscripts is done by means of a standard report, in which the following criteria are recorded: A. First section: manuscript evaluation The following questions are answered by the evaluator pair, whose answer options are, as a rule, three. "Yes", "No", and "Only partially" 1. Is the article the result of legal research, being an original contribution to the discipline? 2. Does the article develop the author's arguments? 3. Evaluate the pertinence, relevance, and timeliness of the literature (in this case, the possible answers are "adequate" and "inadequate") 4. According to you, are the title and summary of the work consistent with the content of the article? 5. Based on the evaluation carried out, what is your opinion on the article? (In this case, the possible options are "accepted", "rejected" and "accepted with modifications") 6. If your opinion is "accepted with modifications", I indicated those aspects that need to be improved by the author: B. Second section: recommendations and observations In point 6 and in the Second Section, the evaluator may elaborate on the following topics: 5. Quality of the article: clarity, relevance of the methodology used (conceptual and methodological rigor), optimal use of the different parts in which the article is distributed (summary, introduction, problem statement, development, conclusions, references), solid research process, coherence. 6. Contribution to knowledge: relevance around knowledge, feedback in the epistemic field, relevance. 7. Contributions of authorship: clear, critical, and differentiated contributions from other texts, current affairs in the area of knowledge. 8. Bibliographic management: guarantee against plagiarism, bibliographic topicality, relevance in research sources Evaluation results The possible results of the evaluation are as follows: 1) Accepted without changes: the manuscript under evaluation has been accepted without changes by the Scientific Committee and goes to the final review phase. 2) Accepted with changes: the manuscript will continue the editorial process whenever the corresponding author annexes the changes indicated by the Scientific Committee. For form modifications, the manuscript will be reviewed by the editorial team, who will make sure that these changes have been applied properly; for slight content modifications, the manuscript will again be submitted to scrutiny by the Scientific Committee. 3) Rejected: the article cannot be published in the call for which you participated. If there is disagreement between the peer evaluators, the manuscript will be submitted to the review of a third pair under equal conditions, whose decision will be defining and unappealable for all events. The third pair will not be aware of the above evaluated by their colleagues, thus guaranteeing their impartiality. Once the evaluators have accepted, the manuscript will be sent in a pre-edited Word format, in which all information linking the manuscript with its authors will be excluded. Likewise, the peer evaluation will be sent to them (duly anonymized) and they will be shared with indications to carry out the evaluation in a maximum period of 20 days. There is the possibility that the evaluating pair sends its completed form in more time than stipulated or that, in the middle of the process, it desists from its work, which implies restarting part of the phase. It is worth clarifying that the average time it takes the entire evaluation process – from the search for evaluators to the review sent to the editorial team – is 30 days. Final acceptance The completed formats, incorporating the modifications requested by the peer evaluators, will be appreciated in the session of the editorial team where, by means of a record, it will be decided if the manuscript continues the editing process, if it is rejected or if it is necessary to apply the mechanisms in cases of controversy. These decisions cannot be challenged. The result of the evaluations and the decision on the permanence in the process will be communicated to the corresponding author in a period of less than 2 months after the first admission. Both the observations of the evaluators and those of the editorial team must be considered by the corresponding author, who will oversee executing the requested adjustments. These modifications and corrections must be made within the indicated period, which generally corresponds to one week (7 days). After receiving the modified article, the editorial team will corroborate the application of the evaluated indications within a week (7 days) and, in case the changes are approved, the process will continue with the final editorial review phase, which, on average, lasts between two to three weeks (15-20 days). Articles will be subject to both style and wording corrections. They will also be subjected to a process of layout and design; the corresponding author must report the revision to the PDF file with his diagrammed article that is sent to him and indicate to the editor about possible errors in a maximum of 3 business days after sending the document. Through a session of the editorial team, it will be defined which manuscripts will be published and in which number: it is worth clarifying that there is a possibility that they will be published in the next two issues after the terms of reference have been published. The assignment of the articles published in each issue will respect the order of arrival of the shipments within each current call. It is recalled that the journal is in permanent call. The date of publication for the article will be fulfilled provided that the corresponding author sends all the documentation that is requested within the indicated period; failure to do so, the publication of the article could be postponed to the next issue or, in case of absenteeism (stop communicating with the editorial team for a period of one month), the publication of the same could be stopped. Cases of controversy Revista de Derecho Público has regular sessions of the editorial team. In these spaces, the evaluations of the manuscripts carried out by the Scientific Committee are appreciated. For cases in which two evaluations yield different recommendations regarding the publication of a manuscript, it will be appealed to quantitatively average the scores of the formats and to make a careful assessment of the evaluations from a qualitative perspective. In case the controversy is still present, the manuscript will be sent to an academic pair that has not been involved in the process. The new evaluation will be discussed in a session of the editorial team, where it will be decided, by means of minutes, the acceptance with changes or the rejection of the application. The rejection implies that the instances to guarantee an ethical procedure were exhausted and, therefore, this decision cannot be appealed. Assignment of rights and unpublished works In order to guarantee an ethical and transparent research process, Revista de Derecho Público requires its authors to confirm that the rights of reproduction and reprinting of the published article belong to the publishing entity.
