Evaluation system

Manuscripts are evaluated through double-blind peer review. All works submitted to the Journal of Human Security and Global Law are assessed according to strict criteria of scientific and academic quality.

In a first phase, the Editorial Committee conducts a general review of the manuscript and verifies that it complies with the style and content standards set out in the editorial criteria. It may reject outright, without external evaluation, any works whose quality is manifestly low or that do not contribute to the journal's thematic scope.

Manuscripts that pass this first filter are sent to two anonymous expert reviewers external to the author's or authors' home institution, in accordance with the double-blind review procedure. Should the two reviewers' assessments diverge, the Editorial Committee may send the text to a third reviewer. The refereeing system draws on a panel of external reviewers that is updated periodically.

Reviewer commitments. Reviewers undertake to carry out a critical, constructive and impartial review of manuscripts and to evaluate them as promptly as possible in order to meet deadlines. They will review a manuscript only if they consider themselves competent in the subject matter and if no conflict of interest exists. They must provide a complete and critical report, with appropriate reference to the journal's review procedure and to the publicly established standards, particularly when they must communicate that a work has been rejected. They are likewise obliged to inform the editors of any part of the work that has been previously published or is under review by another publication. Reviewers must have no conflict of interest with regard to the research to be published, the authors, or the funding of the research.

Evaluation criteria. The assessment takes into account the interest of the article, its contribution to knowledge of the subject it addresses, the novelty it provides, the soundness of the connections it establishes, the critical judgement it develops, the bibliographic references used, the correctness of the writing, and so on. Where appropriate, recommendations for possible improvement will be indicated.

Decisions. In light of the reviewers' reports, the Editorial Committee may adopt one of the following decisions, which will be communicated to the author or authors in a reasoned and confidential manner:
• Accept Submission (or with minor modifications).
• Revisions Required (major corrections).
• Resubmit for Review: not publishable, but eligible to be rewritten and resubmitted.
• Decline Submission.

The journal's editorial direction will notify the author or authors of the reasoned outcome of the evaluation by email, to the address used to submit the article.

Revision process. If the manuscript has been accepted with modifications, the author or authors must resubmit a new version of the article addressing the requests and suggestions of the external evaluators. If they wish, they may attach a letter to the Editorial Committee indicating the content of the modifications made. Depending on the degree to which the requested modifications have been met, the Editorial Committee will rule on whether publication of the article is appropriate. This decision will be communicated to the author or authors by the journal's editorial direction.

Once a decision has been communicated, no correspondence will be maintained regarding submitted materials that are not published.