About the Journal

1. Focus and Scope
2. Peer Review Process
3. Open Access Policy
4. Plagiarism control
5. Derechos y Libertades indexing
6. Ethics statement and good practice
7. Journal History
8. Gender perspective
9. Instructions to reviewers
10. Reviewers' format
11. Editorial policy on the use of Artificial Intelligence
12. Deposit of Supplementary Data in Open Access
13. Copyright and dissemination policy
14. Digital file preservation policy

Focus and Scope

Derechos y Libertades is the biannual journal published by the Instituto de derechos humanos Gregorio Peces-Barba de la Universidad Carlos III de Madrid. It forms part of the publications of the Institute, together with the collections Cuadernos Bartolomé de las Casas, Traducciones and Debates.

 The purpose of Derechos y Libertades is to constitute a forum for discussion and analysis in relation to the theoretical and practical problems of human rights, from the various perspectives through which they can be analysed, among which the philosophical-legal stand out. In this sense, the journal aims to be a means by which contemporary discussion in the field of Philosophy of Law and Political Philosophy is reflected.

Derechos y Libertades is presented at the same time as a means of expression and publication of the main activities and research carried out within the Gregorio Peces-Barba Human Rights Institute.

Peer Review Process

All articles are reviewed by at least two reviewers in a double blind system. In case of doubt between two contradictory evaluations, a third report is requested.

The evaluators must complete an evaluation format found on the Journal's website. The evaluators have one month to make the report.

The receipt of an original, to be included in the Articles section, does not presuppose acceptance for publication. The originals are, first, read by the Editorial Board to see if they meet both the formal requirements indicated, as well as minimum scientific content and adaptation to the editorial lines and objectives of the Journal.

 The referees will be anonymous and may recommend to the author the introduction of certain modifications. In the situation that two reports received on an original are contradictory, a third external reviewer will be consulted. Authors whose articles have obtained a favourable opinion but with a suggestion of corrections will send it back to the Journal, once the improvements have been incorporated.

They must include a file with the text of the article, highlighting in another colour the modifications made in accordance with the referees' comments.

In the case of draft modifications, the article will again be subjected to an external evaluation. In case of non-acceptance, the decision will be communicated to the author of the work together with the content of the respective reports.

Open Access Policy

Derechos y Libertades provides unrestricted access to all of its content from the time of publication in this electronic edition. The publication has no cost for the authors.

Plagiarism control

Before the evaluation, all the works are submitted to an antiplagium control using the Feedback studio application.

Given the limitations of automatic detection programs plagiarism with the Spanish language and in order to respond to broader aspects that are inscribed as plagiarism practices —including translations, fragmentation of results or "salami slicing", duplication, among others— the journal implements a specific procedure to avoid it, namely:

1. At the time of submission of an article, the authors/s are requested to declare that the article has not been previously published or sent to other journals for evaluation. In addition, they are asked to state that they are following the Guidelines for Authors, which state that the articles to be submitted must be original.
2. Upon receipt —and prior to the beginning of the evaluation process— search tools are used on the Internet, in order to track other works of the authors/s and collate the title, excerpts of the abstract, the methodological section and the results of the article submitted for review, in order to corroborate originality and avoid plagiarism practices.
3. When sending it to evaluate peer reviewers, evaluators are also asked to pay attention to possible indicators of plagiarism, since they are the ones who know the sources and literature on the subject.

The journal considers as plagiarism the practices listed and explained below:

Direct plagiarism. This type is incurred when:
1. There is authorship omission and it is not indicated with quotation marks what is taken from another text.
2. Minimal changes are made to the text of another (sentence structure is modified, lowercase is replaced with uppercase or vice versa, synonyms are used, etc.) and is presented as original.

Plagiarism by improper use of paraphrase, is performed when:
1. Although authorship is noted, the original text is reproduced with a few changes that do not constitute paraphrases.

Complex plagiarism using a reference is committed when:
1. The original authorship reference exists, but the pages of the source are pointed out inaccurately.
2. Paraphrase summarizing lengthy texts, but with little or no indication that they correspond to paraphrase.
3. Absence of quotation marks in words and phrases from the original text reproduced verbatim.

Plagiarism with quotation marks is performed when:
1. A quotation continues to be reproduced once quotation marks have been closed or the above phrases have been omitted from the same quotation.

Paraphrasing as plagiarism occurs when:
1. There is paraphrasing and the original source reference is not noted.
2. Paraphrasing is continuous and extensive, no material is added that allows interaction or enriches information, although the source is mentioned.
3. Academic works —which require original thoughts and critical reflections on the views of others— become texts that do not exceed the repetition of other academic texts.
4. Paraphrased passages are not clearly identified as such. It is not considered plagiarism when:
        1. It does not dominate over the work of the writer.
        2. It is used to allow the author to critically interact with the views of another person.
        3. The argument of the original text is rewritten in different words.

"Auto-plagiarism" or recycling fraud is committed when:
1. The appearance of a job is changed and presented as if it were a different job.
2. It omits the indication that the work is being recycled, that is, that it is a previously published work but with corrections or new additions.
3. Autoplage is not considered when:
         1. The previous work is the basis for a new contribution, and key parts should be repeated to explain and defend the new arguments.
         2. The author considers that what he has already said cannot be better said for the new publication.
         3. Repetition does not exceed 25 per cent of the original work.

 

Derechos y Libertades indexing

The Journal Derechos y Libertades is indexed in the Emerging Sources Citation Index de la Web of Science.  It is also included in ERIH, European Index for the Humanities and Social Sciences.

The Journal passed the Call for Evaluation of Editorial and Scientific Quality of the Spanish Scientific Journals and obtained the Seal of Quality FECYT until 2020.

Derechos y Libertades has obtained the category A in the edition 2014 of the CARHUS database. It is indexed in the category B1 of Qualis -Brasil- and the category A in Anvur -Italy-

The Journal has been indexed in Philosopher´s Index, International Political Science Abstracts, Worldwide Political Science Abstracts and the International Bibliography of Social Science (IBSS) databases. It has been included in Dulcinea database as well.

 

Ethics statement and good practice

Publication and authorship

1. All submitted papers are subject to strict double blind peer-review process by at least two national and international reviewers that are experts in the area of the particular paper.
2. The factors that are taken into account in review are relevance, soundness, significance, originality, readability and language.
3. The possible decisions include acceptance, acceptance with revisions, or rejection.
4. If authors are encouraged to revise and resubmit a submission, there is no guarantee that the revised submission will be accepted.
5. Rejected articles will not be re-reviewed.
6. The paper acceptance is constrained by such legal requirements as shall then be in force regarding libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism.
7. No research can be included in more than one publication.

Author’s responsibilities

8. Authors must certify that their manuscripts are their original work.
9. Authors must certify that the manuscript has not previously been published elsewhere.
10. Authors must submit their papers respecting the indications included in the submitting process to assure an anonymous review process.
11. Authors must participate in the double blind peer review process.
12. Authors are obliged to provide retractions or corrections of mistakes.
13. All Authors must have significantly contributed to the research.
14. Authors must state that all data in the paper are real and authentic.
15. Authors must notify the Editors of any conflicts of interest.
16. Authors must identify all sources used in the creation of their manuscript.
17. Authors must report any errors they discover in their published paper to the Editors.

Reviewers’ responsibilities

18. Reviewers should keep all information regarding papers confidential and treat them as privileged information.
19. Reviews should be conducted objectively, with no personal criticism of the author
20. Reviewers should express their views clearly with supporting arguments
21. Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors.
22. Referees are requested to evaluate if the article is methodologically sound, contains results which are clearly presented and support the conclusions, contains an appropriate bibliography and makes a significant contribution to the legal or social sciences..
23. Reviewers should also call to the Editor in Chief's attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge.
24. Reviewers must consider the originals received for review as a confidential document. It should never be shown or discussed with third parties, except in exceptional cases where people who can advise scientifically or academically may be consulted. In these cases, the identities of the people consulted must be revealed to the editor.
25. Reviewers should not review manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.

Editor’s responsibilities

26. Editors have complete responsibility and authority to reject/accept an article.
27. Editors are responsible for the contents and overall quality of the publication.
28.- Editors should guarantee the quality of the papers and the integrity of the academic record.
29. Editors should publish errata pages or make corrections when needed.
30. Editors should have a clear picture of a research's funding sources.
31. Editors should base their decisions solely one the papers' importance, originality, clarity and relevance to publication's scope.
32. Editors must respect the intellectual independence of the authors and consider all the originals submitted for publication, evaluating each of the contributions objectively.
33. Editors should not reverse their decisions nor overturn the ones of previous editors without serious reason.
34. Editors should preserve the anonymity of reviewers.
35. Editors should ensure that all research material they publish conforms to internationally accepted ethical guidelines.
36. Editors should only accept a paper when reasonably certain.
37. Editors should act if they suspect misconduct, whether a paper is published or unpublished, and make all reasonable attempts to persist in obtaining a resolution to the problem.
38. Editors should not reject papers based on suspicions, they should have proof of misconduct.
39. Editors should not allow any conflicts of interest between staff, authors, reviewers and board members.
40. Unpublished information, arguments or interpretations contained in an original submitted to the journal may not be used in research developed by the editors.

Conflict of interest

41. The editors are committed to avoiding any conflict of interest between the actors involved in the production.
42. All texts submitted will be evaluated for their intellectual content, avoiding that the ethnic or national belonging of the authors, their gender, their sexual orientation, their religious beliefs, or their political philosophy interfere in the process. Likewise, external evaluations that interfere with the quality of the work will be rejected.
43. Authors and evaluators are asked to declare in advance any relevant conflicts of interest they might have, so that they can be taken into account when assigning evaluations. Should any conflict arise after the publication of the contribution, a retraction or statement of fact will be made if necessary.
44. A "conflict of interest" is a situation in which there is a divergence between an individual's personal interests and his or her responsibilities in respect of the scientific activities he or she carries out, whether as an author, a reviewer or a member of the editorial board, which may influence his or her critical judgement and the integrity of his or her actions.
45. An economic conflict of interest is when the participant (author/reviewer/editor) has received or expects to receive money for activities related to the research and its dissemination.
46.An academic conflict of interest is when reviewers or editors adhere to a certain methodological or ideological trend in such a way that they may be biased in evaluating the work of others. For this reason they are asked to express themselves in advance.
47.Personal or work relationships’ conflict of interest is when the participants (authors/reviewers/editors) have some kind of friendship, enmity or work relationship. To avoid this, publishers should take into account the sources of funding and the affiliation of the authors, in order to choose evaluators who do not belong to those specific circles.
48. The policy of the journal is to publish original works, written by those who declare their authorship, and unpublished, may not have been previously published in any print or electronic media.

 

Journal History

Derechos y Libertades had a 1st period that was published by the BOE editorial –Official Gazette of the Spanish State-. From the Journal number 14 -2006- to present, the Journal has been published in the Dykinson editorial in what is the 2nd period of the Journal.

Gender Perspective

A gender perspective in an academic law journal means promoting the incorporation of a critical and analytical approach that examines how gendered power relations influence the creation, interpretation and application of Law, as well as the guarantee of human rights. The correct use of information will ensure gender balance, make inequalities visible, combat stereotypes, provide reliable gender-disaggregated data and make women's scientific contribution visible.
This would be a line applied to legal disciplines, similar to the "Sex and Gender Equity in Research: rationale for the SAGER guidelines and recommended use" (Available  at:https://researchintegrityjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s41073-016-0007-6).

Derechos y Libertades. Revista de Filosofía del Derecho y derechos humanos is committed to promoting equality and overcoming gender discrimination in academia. For this reason, Derechos y Libertades guarantees a balanced presence of women and men in the Board Committee, in the Assistant editors and in the Scientific Committee, as well as among the evaluators chosen for the peer review process.

Derechos y Libertades also promotes good editorial practice in gender equality and has included the correct use of inclusive language in its editorial guidelines.

Instructions to reviewers

All articles are reviewed by at least two reviewers in a double-blind system. In case of doubt between two contradictory evaluations, a third report is requested.
The evaluators have to fill in an evaluation form which can be found on the journal's website. Reviewers have one month to complete the report.
The receipt of an original article, to be included in the articles section, does not presuppose its acceptance for publication. The original articles are first read by the Editorial Board to assess whether they meet the formal requirements indicated above, as well as the minimum scientific content and suitability to the journal's editorial guidelines and objectives.
The opinions will be anonymous and may recommend to the author the introduction of certain modifications. If two reports received on an original are contradictory, a third external reviewer will be called in. Authors whose articles have obtained a favourable opinion, but with suggested corrections, will send it back to the journal's Board Committee, once the improvements have been incorporated.

They must include a file with the text of the article, highlighting in another colour the modifications made in accordance with the referees' comments.

In the case of major modifications, the article will again be submitted to an external evaluation. In case of non-acceptance, the decision will be communicated to the author of the paper together with the content of the respective reports.
From this perspective, the following instructions to evaluators will be ensured:
a) All content published by Derechos y Libertades will have passed the established evaluation process.
b) The evaluation process will be carried out by external evaluators, experts in the field to which the publication to be reviewed belongs.
c) Reviewers must not keep or use the manuscripts to which they are given access for review.

d) Reviewers' obligation is to ensure the scientific and scholarly quality of the manuscripts they review, and therefore their evaluations must be based on these criteria, and not on any personal preferences or tastes.
e) Peer reviewers must duly inform the editors if they detect any kind of dishonest practices in the articles they have to evaluate.
f) The blind peer review process will take place in a completely anonymous manner. Upon receipt of the manuscript, copies will be provided to two reviewers, who will not know the identity of the author or have contact with each other. They will issue a report to the editorial team, specifying whether they consider that the article should be published or not, and if they find defects, they may make corrections and recommendations so that the author can modify and improve the manuscript. In addition, all articles will be reviewed using an anti-plagiarism system (Turnitin). Once this process has been passed, and in case of a positive result, the article can be published.
The reviewers will also seek to improve the references in the article, if for example they detect that the author has not cited works that they consider important for the case.
h) They will be given a clear and precise explanation of what is expected of their review task, including the form to be filled in.
i) The identity of the evaluators shall always remain anonymous.
j) They will be required to be honest in undertaking an evaluation if they believe they may have a conflict of interest or personal motivation that could compromise the objectivity of the process.
k) Article reviewers should endeavour to incorporate a gender perspective in their analysis, in line with the SAGER recommendations for scientific research, adapted to an academic journal in a legal discipline and the recommendations of the section "Gender Perspective" ("Sex and Gender Equity in Research: rationale for the SAGER guidelines and recommended use" (Available at: https://researchintegrityjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s41073-016-0007-6).

Ethical commitment of reviewers
The anonymous peer review process relies heavily on the willingness of the academic community to participate in it and on the mutual trust of reviewers and Derechos y Libertades. Its proper functioning requires that all involved act responsibly and ethically.
Reviewers have an obligation to conduct reviews in an ethical and responsible manner. Clear communication between the journal and reviewers is essential to facilitate a review that is consistent, fair and timely. The journal expects reviews to provide useful guidance for researchers and to be a sound reference for decision making by journal managers. The reviewer assumes that the work to be reviewed is a confidential and sensitive document until publication, both during and after the review process. You should refuse to undertake the review if you suspect conflicts of interest, kinship, friendship or enmity, common publications, membership of the same institution, or any other circumstance that might interfere with the review. On the other hand, under no circumstances should you disseminate or use the information, documents, images, details, hypotheses, arguments, interpretations or conclusions contained in the text under review for your own benefit or for the benefit of others, or to the detriment of third parties.
Failure to comply with this principle of confidentiality or the result of unethical behaviour exonerates Derechos y Libertades and its management bodies from any liability whatsoever, as this notice warns the evaluators of the obligation to act ethically.

Reviewers' format

DERECHOS Y LIBERTADES

Época II

Evaluación científica de los trabajos presentados para su
eventual publicación en la Revista Derechos y Libertades

Título del trabajo:

La importancia científica y originalidad del trabajo es:
a)Considerable.... b) limitada.... c)muy escasa....

Observaciones respecto a la anterior afirmación, en su caso:

_____________________________________________________

2.- La utilización de las fuentes legales, jurisprudenciales y
doctrinales es:

a) Muy correcta... b)la adecuada... c)muy escasa...

Observaciones respecto a la afirmación anterior, en su caso:

_____________________________________________________

3.- La estructura, el desarrollo argumental y la calidad de la
presentación del trabajo lo estima:

a)Muy correcto... b)correcto... c)incorrecto...

Observaciones respecto a la estimación anterior, en su caso:

______________________________________________________

4.- El texto respeta el lenguaje inclusivo respecto a la
igualdad entre hombres y mujeres
a)Muy correcto... b)correcto... c)incorrecto...

Observaciones respecto a la estimación anterior, en su caso:

______________________________________________________

5.- En definitiva, teniendo en cuenta las estimaciones
anteriores el firmante considera:

1. Que es muy aconsejable la publicación del
trabajo..........................................

2.Que es aconsejable la publicación del
trabajo..........................................
a)en su texto actual........ ...............
b)sugiriendo al autor las modificaciones que se

indica a continuación............................
Sugerencias que se proponen:

3. Que no es aconsejable la publicación del
trabajo.........................................
Nombre del evaluador:
Fecha:

Editorial policy on the use of artificial intelligence

1. Introduction

At Derechos y Libertades. Revista de Filosofía del Derecho y Derechos Humanos, part of the Carlos III University of Madrid, we are committed to scientific integrity and transparency in the use of
Artificial Intelligence (AI). This policy establishes clear guidelines on the appropriate use of AI tools for authors, reviewers and editors.

2. General principles
In accordance with the guidelines of the COPE Statement and best practices in the scientific community:
.-AI tools cannot meet the criteria for authorship, as they cannot take responsibility for scientific content.
.-They cannot manage conflicts of interest, copyright or make ethical decisions on their own.
3. Authors' use of AI
3.1. Declaration of use:
Authors must explicitly declare the use of any AI tools in the writing or analysis of their manuscripts. The software used, the functions applied and the sections of the manuscript where it
has been employed must be specified.
3.2. Responsibility for originality
The author is responsible for the originality of AI-generated or AI-assisted content. The generated material must not infringe third party rights or plagiarise existing content.
3.3. AI-assisted content review
Authors are responsible for carefully reviewing and checking any AI-generated content for bias, errors or inaccuracies.

4. Use of IA in peer review
4.1. Declaration of AI use by reviewers
If reviewers use AI to assist in the evaluation of a manuscript, they must declare this use. AI can serve as a support, but the critical judgement and final evaluation must be performed by human
beings.

4.2. Manuscript evaluation
AI should not replace the reviewer's responsibility in scientific evaluation. The process should primarily be performed by humans, and the use of AI should be complementary.
5. Use of AI by the editorial team
The editorial team may use AI for administrative and editing tasks, such as manuscript formatting or plagiarism detection, always under rigorous human supervision to ensure consistency and
quality.

6. Ethics in the use of AI
The use of AI must not, under any circumstances, lead to data manipulation, plagiarism or intellectual property violations. Any misuse of AI, intentional or unintentional, will be dealt with in
accordance with COPE's policies and other ethical standards of the publisher.
7. Evaluation and updating of the policy
This policy will be reviewed regularly to adapt to technological developments in AI and to ensure best practice within scientific publishing.
8. Consequences of non-compliance
Failure to comply with this policy may result in the withdrawal of the manuscript or a ban on future submissions to Rights' Freedoms

Deposit of Supplementary Data in Open Access

Derechos y Libertades encourages authors to deposit supplementary data related to their publications in open-access repositories federated within the European Open Science Cloud (EOSC), such as Zenodo, Dryad, or the e-CienciaDatos repository of the Madroño Consortium. This includes materials such as tables, statistical data, databases, or other resources that are not part of the original article but may be valuable to the academic community. These repositories assign a DOI to datasets, ensuring their accessibility, reusability, and citation in scientific publications and other academic works.