|
The journal Justice and Law (JD) is a scientific judicial publication published every six months, essentially aimed at magistrates, judges, specialists and other workers of the Cuban Court System (TS); also, at other jurists, students and academics of the speciality, and professionals from different areas of knowledge in the national and international sphere who can contribute results for the continuous improvement of the administration of justice.
Scientific research that has an impact on the work of the TS is the fundamental source of the articles and other texts that appear in the journal. Its contents, of novelty and scientific impact, are published in Spanish and English. It is refereed and edited, in open access, by the Supreme People's Court of the Republic of Cuba (TSP).
The journal accepts original and unpublished works, related to the editorial profile, and adhering to the Policies and ethical principles of the publication.
Policy on sections and types of contributions
JD journal presents the following sections and types of contributions:
• Editorial note: This section publishes the text written by the editor of the journal or an expert invited by him/her for this purpose, with the aim of making known the institutional position or opinion in relation to a certain aspect or offering information about the content of the submission. The work is evaluated by the Editorial Board (EC).
• Reflection and socialisation: In this section see the light of day research articles, of a scientific, teaching or investigative nature, original and unpublished, showing the results of completed research, and other types of scientific collaborations, in accordance with the themes of the journal; versions are accepted, total or partial, of theses, dissertations and papers, written in the form of scientific article, essays, doctrinal and jurisprudential studies, case analysis. Contributions to this section are subject to evaluation by anonymous academic peers, using the double-blind system.
• Monographic studies: This section publishes review articles that address a particular issue in depth, assessing progress, development trends and insufficiently addressed aspects. Its purpose is to make a relevant, critical and original contribution. Its structure includes: introduction, methodology, development (with subtitles for each topic), conclusions and references. These papers are evaluated by academic peers, using the double-blind system.
• Environment: In this section, comments of general interest are published, which correspond to legal science, innovation in the field, information technologies, etc., both nationally and internationally. These contributions are valued by the EC.
The journal devotes 75% of its sections to the publication of scientific content.
Upload
Review Policy
The review of submitted papers follows internationally accepted standards and good practices, in particular the rules and recommendations of the Code of Conduct of the Committee on Publications Ethics (COPE), on which the ethical standards of the journal are based.
Peer review
Papers submitted to the sections Reflection and Socialisation and Monographic Studies undergo a double-blind peer review process, which guarantees anonymity between authors and reviewers, avoids conflicts of interest and ensures the impartiality of the reviewer's opinion.
The texts of the remaining sections are published by decision of the Editorial Board, at the proposal of one of its members, appointed by the journal's editor.
Editorial process
The editorial process takes an average of 120 working days, from the beginning of the assessment of the original until its publication. Authors are notified of the receipt of their contribution and of the decisions taken at each stage of the process. The editorial process consists of the following phases:
I. Editorial evaluation.
II. Academic evaluation.
III. Final evaluation.
Flow of the editorial process
I. Editorial evaluation
This is the first stage of the review process, with a maximum duration of 30 working days. It is carried out by the main editor and the section editors, with the aim of verifying that the contribution complies with the standards of presentation required by the journal and corresponds to the themes of the journal, for which they have a form available (Editorial evaluation protocol).
The assessment criteria at this stage are as follows:
1. The text corresponds to the themes of the journal.
2. It is original and unpublished.
3. The cover letter has been submitted and includes all the data required as metadata:
• Title, abstract and keywords in the two languages of the publication (Spanish and English).
• Author details: full name and surname, academic degree or title, institution or entity where the author works, country, email address and ORCID code.
4. The cover letter also includes declarations of originality, authorship and conflicts of interest.
5. The title is brief, concise and pertinently reflects the essence of the work.
6. The format, structure and length of the contribution correspond to the standards of presentation required by the journal.
7. Citations and bibliographical references are in accordance with APA Standards.
The evaluation of the formal parameters concludes with one of the following decisions:
Decision 1: Reject the submission if it fails to comply with requirements 1 and 2. The main editor communicates this decision to the author.
Decision 2: Return the submission to the author, if it fails to comply with the remaining requirements, with the aim that, within a period not exceeding 10 working days, the author makes the editorial changes in form and presentation that are indicated, or completes the cover letter. Failure to do so within this period or to communicate with the main editor will result in rejection of the submission.
Decision 3: Accept the paper without modifications and submit it for academic evaluation.
II. Academic evaluation
The academic evaluation of each paper for the sections Reflection and Socialization and Monographic Studies will be carried out by academic peers, using the double-blind system, in complete anonymity between authors and reviewers. If the evaluations of the reviewers are contradictory or if one of them suggests it, the submission will be submitted to the consideration of a third reviewer.
Selection of reviewers
The journal JD has a database of national and foreign specialists, classified by academic category and distributed by disciplinary areas and institutions, which allows the Editorial Board to ensure that the reviewers selected for the evaluation of each original are external to the publishing entity and to the institution or entity of origin of the authors. By accepting this responsibility, reviewers undertake to comply with the journal's Code of Ethics, in line with the standards and recommendations of the Committee on Publications Ethics (COPE).
Timing of the academic review
The academic assessment should not exceed 30 working days. The selected pair of reviewers carries out the assessment simultaneously within 20 working days. If a third expert is called in, he/she will have 10 working days to give his/her opinion. The review function is personal and non-delegable.
Evaluation criteria
The following aspects will be assessed in the academic review:
1. The current relevance and novelty of the work.
2. Scientific-methodological rigour, reliability and scientific validity of the work.
3. Relevance and scientific contribution of the results.
4. Organisation and coherence of the ideas.
5. Compliance with the ethical requirements of the publication.
The verification of ethical aspects seeks to avoid conduct such as: redundant or duplicate publication, plagiarism, manipulation and/or invention of data, undeclared conflicts of interest.
Peers will be provided with an evaluation form, in which they will set out their assessment of the work, as well as their recommendations for authors and editors (Academic evaluation protocol).
Academic evaluation decisions
The reviewers may take one of the following decisions:
Decision 1. Reject the work, in the event that it does not exceed the amount of 40 points, in accordance with the methodology established in the Assessment Protocol, or any of the following circumstances concur:
• Failure to make a new scientific contribution.
• The result is out of date.
• There is no correspondence between its research objective, the methods used and the results obtained.
• Unethical conduct is suspected during the research.
• Discriminatory bias is identified, for whatever reason.
Decision 2: Accept the work with modifications, which may be minimal, moderate or complex:
Minimal
1. Reorder the bibliographical references.
2. Remake the introduction.
3. Complete the titles and sources of visual elements (tables, figures, graphs, images).
The author makes the corrections within a period not exceeding 5 working days from the moment he/she receives notification from the publisher. If the author submits the corrections within the established deadline, the editor will send the article to the reviewers again, so that they can assess compliance with the recommendations made, within a period not exceeding 5 working days, which will be recorded in the respective Protocol. If the author does not make the modifications or does not communicate with the journal within the time allowed, the article is considered rejected.
Moderate
1. Correctly explaining the materials and methods used.
2. Reorganise the structure of the work.
3. Synthesise the results.
The author makes the corrections within 10 working days of receiving notification from the main editor. If the author submits the corrections within the established period, the editor sends the article to the reviewers again, so that they can assess compliance with the recommendations made, within a period not exceeding 5 working days, which is recorded in the respective Protocol. If the author does not make the modifications or does not communicate with the journal within the time allowed, the paper is considered rejected.
Complex
1. To clarify the correspondence between the introduction, materials and methods, results and conclusions.
2. Improve the presentation of the results, in accordance with the established objectives.
3. Improve the discussion of the results.
4. Update the bibliography.
The author makes the corrections within a period not exceeding 20 working days, counted from the moment he/she receives the notification from the main editor. If the author submits the corrections within the established period, the editor sends the article to the reviewers again, so that they can assess compliance with the recommendations made, within a period not exceeding 10 working days, which is recorded in the respective Protocol. If the author does not make the modifications or does not communicate with the journal within the time allowed, the paper is considered rejected.
Decision 3. Accept the article without modifications.
When the article is accepted, it will be processed and edited by the Editorial Team, which will be done within a period not exceeding 30 working days. Once the text has been edited, it enters the final evaluation stage.
III. Final evaluation
The final evaluation is carried out by the journal's Board of Directors within a period not exceeding 20 working days (Final evaluation protocol).
The criteria taken into account at this stage are as follows:
1. Relevance of the contribution, as considered by the publishing institution.
2. Institutional interest in the publication of the work.
The decisions at this stage are as follows:
Decision 1: Approve the submission and determine the edition in which it will be published.
Decision 2: Reject the submission.
When decision 1 is taken, the author is notified and the contribution goes to the design, layout and final correction of the corresponding edition.
If decision 2 is taken, the author is notified.
Upload
Policy for detecting plagiarism and other unethical behaviour
The editorial team assumes responsibility for investigating illicit or dishonest practices identified at any stage of the process and for taking appropriate action to deal with them.
The JD Editorial Board identifies the following as unethical conduct:
a) Plagiarism, in all its manifestations;
b) fictitious authorship;
c) individual appropriation of collective authorship;
d) omission of relevant contributions;
e) failure to declare conflicts of interest;
f) omission of citations and references to relevant sources;
g) redundant or duplicate publications;
h) bias in the selection of reviewers;
i) other violations of research and scientific publication ethics by authors, editors and reviewers.
Contributions that incur in any of these facts will be rejected. The journal reserves the right to make this behaviour public to the international academic community.
JD ensures compliance with the rules and recommendations of the COPE, and follows the decision flows recommended by the COPE, uses the Dupli Checker anti-plagiarism tool and implements a policy to detect plagiarism and unethical behaviour in research and in the scientific publication process. To this end, it makes it clear that:
1. Authors must sign the cover letter, expressly declaring the originality of the contributions submitted and any conflicts of interest that may exist; they are also responsible for the results and opinions expressed, as well as for any infringements of copyright and ethical rules of research.
2. The submission of texts by authors presupposes that they are aware of and accept the editorial policy of the journal, in particular with regard to copyright, and the conditions of use and reuse of the work. Submissions that do not comply with these guidelines will be returned to the sender.
3. The journal accepts no responsibility for copyright infringement by submitters and reserves the right to decide at what point accepted papers will be published, in accordance with editorial interests.
4. The texts submitted must be unpublished, must not be submitted for consideration by other publications and must ensure the actual authorship of the participants in the work.
5. Authors must indicate the sources and contributions mentioned in the article reliably.
6. Those who decide to send contributions previously submitted to JD to another publication must notify JD of the withdrawal of the text from its editorial process.
7. Reviewers are obliged to declare any conflicts of interest that may affect the review of the article and undertake to evaluate the article without bias, with a critical and objective eye, and to make solid and constructive arguments.
8. Reviewers must refrain from using unpublished work for their own research without the prior consent of the authors and inform the journal editor if they identify the creators of the work.
9. The members of the Editorial and Scientific Boards of the journal ensure compliance with the criteria that guarantee the ethical reliability of the editorial process; they ensure the observance of data protection regulations and refrain from submitting manuscripts of their own authorship, except when there are justified reasons and they make an express declaration of the concurrent conflict of interest. Furthermore, they undertake not to use the contents of unpublished articles without the express consent of the authors.
10. The publishers ensure the selection of qualified reviewers for the evaluation of each text and require that these reviewers carry out the review process objectively. They also maintain and preserve documentation relating to articles, reviews and the final product, ensure compliance with the journal's publication standards and editorial procedures, and follow established procedures in the event of complaints of alleged ethical breaches or undeclared conflicts of interest.
11. All contributions received by the journal are reviewed anonymously by academic peers, using the double-blind system. The evaluations are objective in nature, based on a guide and conclude with an opinion that ensures the scientific relevance, originality and thematic relevance of the articles published.
Upload
Digital preservation policy
JD journal implements a preservation and IT security policy to maintain digital integrity, authenticity, reliability, legibility and originality. This policy is assumed, with responsibility and commitment, by all staff involved in editorial management, and is materialised through the following actions:
• It is edited with the free software Open Journal System (PKP/OJS).
• It uses international repositories such as Google Scholar and Latinrev.
• It makes annual preservation copies in different media.
• Makes backup copies and employs protection mechanisms against unforeseen events, such as disk crashes or data loss due to exceptional situations, such as power outages, server disconnection and others.
• Protects information published on servers and digital resources being edited in a comprehensive and systematic manner.
Upload
Data protection policy
JD journal guarantees the protection of the personal data of all its contributors, even if the works are not accepted, in accordance with the provisions of the legislation in force in the Republic of Cuba, in particular Law No. 149 of May 14, 2022, "On the protection of personal data". The names, e-mail addresses and other data entered on the platform during the editorial process are used exclusively for the purposes stated in the editorial policy.
The journal takes appropriate security measures to prevent the authors' data from being disclosed and used while the editorial process is in progress. Authors consent to the publication of their personal data in conjunction with the works. Rejected contributions are archived in the historical record of the editorial and publication management system used by JD Journal.
Upload
Gender equality policy
Justicia y Derecho adheres to the policies and international commitments assumed in the area of gender equality, as expressed in the National Programme for the Advancement of Women, the Gender Strategy of the System of Courts of Justice, its Protocol of Action and other regulations in force in the Republic of Cuba.
The publication ensures a balanced composition in terms of the proportion of women and men, both in the composition of its editorial and scientific boards, as well as in the thematic selection of texts and authorial participation.
The editorial staff follows the common rules of use of the Spanish language. The use of the generic grammatical masculine is in no way intended to cause discrimination. As far as possible, in line with the principle of equality, inclusive language is used and the use of terms with a sexist connotation is avoided.
Articles and other contributions whose content is overtly discriminatory, or contributes to the reproduction of existing stereotypes and gender gaps in society, are inadmissible.
Errata, corrections and retractions policy
Articles and other scientific contributions published in Justice and Law are kept as accurate as possible. Exceptionally, there may be circumstances in which a published text must be corrected or removed. Such decisions will be taken by the Editorial Board, after careful consideration, with the assistance of the Scientific Board. To this end, the rights and guarantees of those involved will be preserved, in accordance with the practices recommended by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).
Correction and retraction mechanisms seek to ensure the integrity of shared scientific texts and, in this sense, provide information to readers about any errors or misconduct identified in them, with the aim of making changes transparent and avoiding inappropriate use and citation of the literature. Rectification procedures vary depending on the type of inaccuracy found, its seriousness and its consequences.
Errata are mistakes made by the editor that affect the registration of texts, authorship or the reputation of the authors, but do not affect their academic integrity. The erratum should provide detailed information about the mistakes and the changes made. Where it is necessary to rectify more than one document in the same issue, each requires a separate notice.
Errors or omissions made by the authors which, while maintaining the integrity of the work, affect the publication record, authorship or reputation of the creators, are subject to correction. The notice of correction is drafted in the form established for the erratum.
In both cases, the publisher:
- Adds an erratum or correction note to the original text.
- Publishes, together with the original text, in a separate, paginated document, the erratum or correction notice.
- Places the corrected text, together with the previous ones.
Retraction is appropriate when relevant errors are identified that invalidate the contributions or conclusions of the academic paper or serious flaws are identified in the research or publication. The following constitute grounds for retraction
- Identification of plagiarism, duplicate publication or other serious violation of academic or professional ethics.
- The discovery of the falsity or unreliability of the data or information provided, whether due to error or wilful misconduct.
- Fraudulent authorship.
- Manipulation of the academic peer review process.
- Use of licensed works without the authorisation of the copyright holder.
- Failure to declare any significant conflicts of interest that may have influenced the evaluation and approval of the work.
- Others that compromise the integrity of the publication.
On becoming aware of the possible existence of a cause for retraction, the editor proceeds to investigate it and, if it is verified:
- He places a watermark on the published text, indicating his retraction.
- After the title of the work, he will add a note expressing the retraction.
- It publishes, together with the text, a notice of retraction, explaining the reason for the retraction, the date on which it takes place and the other measures taken, as the case may be. This notice is signed by the editor and its pages are numbered.
- The metadata of the publication is maintained as far as it is not affected by the error identified.
Exceptionally, the retraction may involve the removal of the published text, if it infringes the rights of third parties, poses a serious risk to the scientific community, is subject to conflict or is so ordered by the competent judicial authority.
If, once the investigation has been completed, the alleged cause is not proven, the reporter will be informed and an apology will be sent to the author.
Readers, authors and reviewers who detect errors or irregularities in any of the published material are urged to inform the editor so that he/she can implement the correction or retraction mechanisms provided for.
Policy on the use of artificial intelligence
The journal Justice and Law recognises the potential of artificial intelligence (AI) as a tool to enrich legal-scientific research. However, its use must be governed by ethical principles, transparency and academic responsibility. This policy establishes clear guidelines for authors, reviewers and editors on the use of AI in the preparation, evaluation and publication of content.
- Principles
- Academic integrity: Human authorship is inalienable. AI will not be considered as author or co-author of the work.
- Transparency: Authors must explicitly declare the use of AI tools at any stage of the research process (including the writing of the text); similarly, reviewers and editors will disclose the AI tools they use in their respective roles.
- Responsibility: Authors are solely responsible for the content, rigour and originality of their work, even if they use AI tools in their work.
- Ethics: The use of AI must respect intellectual property rights and the rules on personal data protection, according to the applicable regulations.
- Guidelines for authors
- a) In the cover letter, authors should detail:
- AI tools used (ChatGPT, Claude, DeepSeek, data analysis systems, among others), broken down according to the stages of the research in which they have used them.
- Purpose of use (literature review, case law analysis, drafting, referencing or other).
- Limits and human supervision applied.
- Consent to the editorial processing of the postulated text using AI tools and its potential delivery to an AI model as training data, in accordance with this policy.
- b) Authors must ensure that the use of AI does not infringe copyright or reproduce protected content without permission.
- c) Whenever AI is used in the processing of personal or sensitive data, information on compliance with data protection laws must be provided.
- d) Where AI is used to generate images, it must be stated whether the images used as input are freely available for use or whether the necessary authorisation to use or transform them is available.
- e) The use of AI to generate fraudulent content, to manipulate data, to plagiarise, to impersonate peer review processes or to generate false jurisprudential citations is prohibited.
- Guidelines for reviewers and editors
- a) Editorial and scholarly review shall in all cases be carried out by human beings, who may be assisted by AI tools, to facilitate their work.
- b) In the respective opinion, editors and reviewers shall state the IA tools used and their purpose, as appropriate (assistance in the preparation of the opinion, search for additional information, or other), as well as the measures taken to avoid or reduce bias and misinformation.
- c) Editors and reviewers are responsible for the criteria and recommendations expressed, on their behalf, in the respective opinions.
- d) Editors and reviewers should alert if lack of transparency or algorithmic bias is suspected.
- e) The editorial team may use AI in their processes (verifying compliance with publication requirements, detecting plagiarism, identifying potential reviewer profiles, drafting emails, creating messages for dissemination on social networks, conducting style review, validating the relevance, originality and contribution of a text, among other uses).
- f) Where relevant, authors will be alerted to the submission of their text to an AI model, which may involve its incorporation into the AI training data.
- g) To the extent possible, the editorial team will be trained to identify inappropriate uses of AI and assess their impact on the legal-scientific validity of the articles. At the same time, they will verify the declaration of use of AI.
- h) Readers will be alerted to published work that has resulted from the use of AI.
- i) The use of AI on external, non-auditable platforms will not be permitted during peer review.
- Actions in the event of non-compliance
Failure to comply with this policy may result in:
- Immediate rejection of the submitted article or scientific text.
- The retraction of published articles, if undeclared or fraudulent use of AI is detected.
- The prohibition to submit contributions to the journal, temporarily or permanently.
Justice and Law will promote critical debate on the application of AI in law and the administration of justice, through special collaborations with other persons or institutions.
This policy will be in force from the moment it is published on the journal's website and will be revised when appropriate, in order to adapt to technological advances and emerging regulatory frameworks.
|