Preliminary evaluation: Once the articles have been received in the Open Journal System (OJS) platform, the Editorial Committee will carry out an evaluation aimed at verifying the relevance and quality of the article. An originality assessment will also be conducted in order to rule out plagiarism or copyright infringements. If there are no observations on any of these elements, the manuscript will be sent for evaluation by external peers, which will be notified to the author.

During the preliminary phase, the editor of the Journal is entitled to reject an article when it is not relevant within the subject of research of the Journal or when the quality of the text does not correspond to the editorial parameters. In case the article does not meet the formal requirements but, given its quality, the publisher considers that it may be publishable, it may be forwarded to the author to consider the suggestions and incorporate them into a new version of the document. This new version must be uploaded through the OJS platform.

Peer review: In order to guarantee an appropriate evaluation and feedback process, in accordance with international editorial policies, Novum Jus uses the double blind review system. Articles submitted and approved by the editorial committe are then evaluated by expert referees, who in a maximum period of 30 days must review the article and return it to the editor. The Journal's team of arbitrators is made up of recognized national and foreign scholars, with Masters or Doctorate degrees in their respective field of study. The list of referees is published once a year.

After approving the preliminary evaluation process, each article is sent to a peer reviewer, who can be either domestic or foreign. The process of peer review is anonymous, therefore at no time during the evaluation will there be knowledge of the name, affiliation and other personal data of the author or of the peer. Each of the components that are evaluated by the peers is detailed in the "peer evaluation format" that can be consulted on this web page.

Peer reviewers cannot issue an evaluation if he or she identifies the author at any point in  the process. If this situation occurs, a new peer reviewer will be assigned to the article. When the peer has completed the evaluation process and submitted the evaluation to the editor, the author will receive a copy of the suggestions and comments for consideration and be integrated into a new version of the text. The author will have five days to respond if he accepts the observations or not. In case of not accepting them, the Editorial Committee may reject the article. The version with corrections must be uploaded to the platform by the author. In case of being rejected by one of the peers, within five days the author may request a second review and his article will be assigned a second peer.