About the Journal

A. Focus and Scope

Revista de postgrados de Derecho del CUNORI is a peer-reviewed scholarly multidisciplinary Open Access journal. The journal aims to publish studies related to teaching. Revista de postgrados de Derecho del CUNORI doesn't have article processing charges. The journal is published by Centro Universitario de Oriente from Universidad de San Carlos de Guatemala since 2024.

B. Editorial Processes

After making a submission

1st. stage: Suitability of the submission for the journal

The editor will do an initial review of the work to evaluate whether it is suitable for the aims and scope of the journal. The submission may be rejected by the editor if it does not meet the requirements set out in the submission preparation checklist. If the editor considers the submission appropriate for the journal, he or she may ask the author or authors to make corrections to the work if he or she deems it necessary. This 1st. stage will last no more than 1 month.

2nd. stage: Peer-review process

Please read the peer-review process in its appropiate section.

After accepting a submission

1st. stage: Final corrections with the editor

The editor will be in charge of making a final review of the final draft. The editor may ask the author to review whether the title, summary and keywords are appropriate for the final draft. This 1st. stage will last no more than 1 week.

2nd. stage: Copyediting

The editor will review the writing of the work, adhere to the rules established by the APA style that authors must follow, and review similarities and plagiarism. The editor may ask the author to make corrections that he considers appropriate both to improve the writing of the manuscript and to resolve problems due to inappropriate use of style. This 2nd. stage will last no more than 2 weeks.

3rd. stage: Layout of the paper

The editor will assign a layout designer to layout the article. This 3rd. stage will last no more than 1 week.

4th. stage: Publishing the paper

After the paper has been laid out, the work will be published after 2 days.

5th. stage: Corrections and retractions

If a correction or retraction is required, please review the policy adopted by the editorial body regarding corrections and retractions of works.

C. Peer-review process

Type of submissions that are peer-reviewed

The following submissions are peer-reviewed : a) Original research papers

Type of peer-review

The journal has implemented a closed double-blind peer review. That is, both the identity of the author and the peer reviewer are kept anonymous throughout the arbitration. The editor is the only one who knows the identity of the peer reviewers and authors. The editor will endeavor to promptly remove, in the documents used during the arbitration, data that may lead to the identification of both the peer evaluators and authors of the submission.

Peer-review process

The submissions that are suitable for the journal are sent to a first round of peer-review.

1st. round of peer-review: the editor will select a minimum of 2 peer reviewers, external to the publisher and experts in the subject required to review the submission. The editor will take no more than 1 week to select appropriate peer reviewers to review the submission. If no peer-reviewers are found to evaluate the submission, the editor may ask the authors to provide a list of potential peer reviewers to review their submission.

Subsequently, the editor will send the peer reviewers the invitation to review the submission. Peer reveiwers will have no more than 1 week to respond to the request. If the peer reviewers accept the invitation, they will have no more than 1 month to review the submission.

The editor will provide the peer reviewers with a manuscript review protocol that they must complete. Likewise, within the protocol the peer reviewers must include the recommendation to accept or reject the submission. Peer evaluators will only give the following recommendations:

Accept the submission as stands or after doing minor or major revisions
Reject the submission with or without resubmission invitation

The recommendations and observations made by the peer reviewers will be sent to the author in a timely manner.

The editor may or may not take into consideration the recommendations of the peer reviewers. Regardless of whether the peer recommendations are consistent or contrary, the editor will be entitled to ask the opinion of other peer reviewers in new rounds of the peer-review process. At the end of this 1st. round, the editor will decide whether to:

Start a 2nd. round: it is done for the editor to get more information from other experts and make a better informed decision
Accept the submission as stands: the author will be notified immediately
Accept submission after the author makes minor or major modifications: The author will be notified immediately. The submission will be accepted by the editor once the author makes the indicated minor or major corrections. The author will have no more than 1 month to make these modifications.
Reject the submission with or without an invitation to resubmit to the journal: the author will be notified immediately.

2nd round of peer-review: the editor will contact a minimum of 2 peer reviewers (different from the first round) who are external to the publisher and experts in the topic required to review the submission.

The editor will take no more than 1 week to select appropriate peer reviewers to review the submission. If no peer reviewers are found to evaluate the submission, the editor may ask the authors to provide a list of potential peer reviewers to review their submission.

Subsequently, the editor will send the peer reviewers the invitation to review the submission. Peer evaluators will have no more than 1 week to respond to the request. If the peer reviewers accept the invitation, they will have no more than 1 month to review the submission.

Accept the submission as stands or after doing minor or major revisions
Reject the submission with or without resubmission invitation

The recommendations and observations made by the peer reviewers will be sent to the author in a timely manner.

The editor may or may not take into consideration the recommendations of the peer reviewers. Regardless of whether the peer recommendations are consistent or contrary, the editor will be empowered to ask for the opinion of other peer reviewers in new rounds of arbitration. At the end of this round, the editor will decide whether:

Start a 3rd. round: it is done for the editor to get more information from other experts and make a better informed decision
Accept the submission as stands: the author will be notified immediately
Accept submission after the author makes minor or major modifications: The author will be notified immediately. The submission will be accepted by the editor once the author makes the indicated minor or major corrections. The author will have no more than 1 month to make these modifications.
Reject the submission with or without an invitation to resubmit to the journal: the author will be notified immediately.

3rd. round of peer review and subsequent ones: the editor will follow the same steps already described previously in the 2nd. round. The peer review process may be extended to more than 3 rounds as the editor deems appropriate.

D. Open Access Statement

Revista de postgrados de Derecho del CUNORI adheres to different initiatives that promote free access to knowledge. Therefore, all contents of the Revista de postgrados de Derecho del CUNORI are free and open access and are published under a Creative Commons Attribution International 4.0 license.

E. Periodicity

Revista de postgrados de Derecho del CUNORI is published semi-annually. The issues are published at the end of June and December every year.

F. Article Processing Charges (APCs)

Revista de postgrados de Derecho del CUNORI doesn't have any fees for the submission, revision nor publication of works.

G. Authorship

The publisher defines authorship of works if the following 4 aspects are met:

Substantial contribution to the following:
1. Conception or design of the work
2. Obtaining, analyzing or interpreting data
Preparation of the draft of the work or its critical revision for important academic contents
Final approval of the final draft to be published
Agree to be responsible for all aspects of the work by ensuring that questions regarding the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work have been adequately investigated and resolved.

The authors of the work will be considered as such if they comply with all the 4 aspects described above. Those who fulfill less than the 4 aspects must be mentioned in the acknowledgments part of the work.

Contributor Roles Taxonomy (CRediT)

The publisher requires that authors, who comply with the 4 aspects of authorship of works, provide information related to the individual contribution of each author to the work. If this information is not provided at the time of submission, the editor may require it in the following stages of the editorial workflow.

To consistently provide the contribution of each author, the CRediT roles are displayed below with their explanation. Please note that an author does not necessarily have to have all the CRediT roles but only those that are relevant.

Classification of CRediT contributor roles:

Project administration: responsibility for management and coordination of research planning and execution.
Formal analysis: application of statistical, mathematical, computational or other formal techniques to analyze or synthesize study data.
Conceptualization: ideas; formulation or evolution of research goals and objectives
Data Curation: Management activities to annotate (produce metadata), cleanse data, and maintain research data (including software code, where necessary to interpret the data) for initial use and subsequent reuse.
Investigation: carrying out the research project, specifically conducting experiments or collecting data or evidence.
Methodology: development or design of methodology; model creation.
Funding acquisition: obtaining financial support for the research published in this work.
Resources: provide study materials, reagents, materials, patients, laboratory samples, animals, instrumentation, computer resources or other analysis tools.
Writing - Preparation of the initial draft: creation and/or presentation of the published work, specifically writing the initial draft (including a substantial translation).
Writing - Review and editing: Preparation, creation and/or presentation of the published work by the members of the original research group, specifically critical review, comments or revision, including the stages before or after publication.
Software: programming, software development; computer program design; implementation of computer code and supporting algorithms; testing existing code components.
Supervision: supervision and being responsible for leading the planning and execution of the research activity, including external advice to the research group.
Validation: verification, either as part of the activity or separately, of the overall replication or reproducibility of the results or experiments and other research products.
Visualization: preparation, creation and/or presentation of the published work, specifically the visualization or presentation of data.

An example of a contribution declaration in a work, using the CRediT role taxonomy, could be the following:

Note: the degree of contribution can be added in parentheses. For example:

Leader: if he/she is the one who contributed the most to this task

Equal: if you contributed the same as other authors in this task

Support: if you contributed by supporting other authors in this task

Juan Pérez: writing - review and editing (same). María Pérez-Pérez: conceptualization (leader); writing – preparation of the initial draft (leader); formal analysis (leader); writing – review and editing (same). Pedro Pérez: methodology (leader); writing – preparation of the initial draft (support).

H. Supplementary information policy

Supplementary information consists of material relevant to the study. That is, databases, images, texts, etc. that were used to obtain the results reported in the study. The files complementary to the study are important so that both the editor and peer reviewers can review them. Likewise, they serve to validate the research results. That is, both the editor and peer reviewers can reproduce the results of the study using the same analyzes reported by the author. The above allows us to detect errors, fabrication of results and other problems. In addition, it makes the investigation more transparent.

Authors are recommended the following:

Provide complementary information to the editorial body or deposit it in a relevant complementary file repository
Cite and link the database to the article
If this is not possible, provide a statement explaining the reasons for not sharing the complementary information.

I. Originality of submissions policy

A work will be considered original when it is free of plagiarism and is 90% written by the author's text. That is, the percentage of textual citations from other authors should not exceed 10%.

About plagiarism

Plagiarism definition

Research Integrity Office (n.d.) indicated that plagiarism is copying the text of other authors, without giving them adequate credit, and passing it off as your own. In other words, plagiarism is stealing someone else's text and passing it off as if you had written it yourself.

Types of plagiarism

Voluntary plagiarism: submissions may contain issues of willful plagiarism when authors completely forget to credit other authors' text. That is, when portions of the submission's text appear to have been written by the author. However, this text has a headline that is not the author of the submission. The magazine will not consider as an original work a submission in which problems of voluntary plagiarism are detected. The author will be notified immediately so that the author can make the necessary corrections within a period of no more than 1 week.

Involuntary plagiarism: submissions can lead to problems of involuntary plagiarism, when authors incorrectly cite the text of other authors. For example, when the author of the submission passes off verbatim quotes from other authors as narratives. The magazine will not consider as original work a submission in which problems of involuntary plagiarism are detected. The author will be notified immediately so that the author can make the necessary corrections within a period of no more than 1 week.

Plagiarism that falls into copyright infringment: submissions may contain material that is protected under copyright. For example, a logo or image protected by copyright. Reproducing this material may violate copyright if the author does not have permission from the owner of the material. If this problem is detected in the submission, the author will be asked to omit this copyrighted material or provide permission to reproduce it. The author will have 1 week to present a solution to this problem.

Self-plagiarism: submissions may have self-plagiarism problems. That is, when authors reuse materials written by them that are already published in their submissions. However, they do not give them proper credit despite having been written by them. The magazine will not consider a submission in which self-plagiarism problems are detected as original work. The author will be notified immediately so that the author can make the necessary corrections within a period of no more than 1 week.

Non-plagiarism: common domain phrases popularly used in works are not considered plagiarism. That is, denominations that cannot be written any other way. Ex.: The descriptive quantitative methodology…The Political Constitution of the Republic of…

Tools to detect plagiarism

The editor will use Turnitin's similarity detection tool. This tool allows the detection of similarities. That is, coincidences of words in the submission with those contained in already published works. These similarities or coincidences of words may or may not fall into plagiarism. The editor will be in charge of reviewing the submission similarity report. The editor will take as a reference the recommendation of Turnitin (s.f.) when indicating that the similarity index of the work is not greater than 25%. However, this index is not a direct indicator of plagiarism. A submission may contain a similarity index of less than 25% and contain plagiarism problems. Therefore, the editor will evaluate in detail to determine if the similarities found fall into the different types of plagiarism described above.

Decisions related to submissions with plagiarism detected

The editor will not accept a submission containing the plagiarism issues described above. However, the author will be given the opportunity to correct any plagiarism problems that are present in their submission. If the plagiarism problems described above are detected, the author will have the opportunity to correct these problems within a period of no more than 1 week.

However, the editor may reject a submission in which plagiarism is detected in more than 2/3 of the work or if there are plagiarized results from other published works that the author cannot justify. The publisher will notify the author of any of the problems described above. The editor will ask the author to respond within 1 week and provide an explanation. If he does not respond or cannot explain any of the problems described above, the editor will reject the submission.

Complaints about plagiarism in published works

The journal will take seriously any complaint submitted by readers, researchers or third parties regarding plagiarism problems in published works. If a complaint is received, the editor-in-chief will open an investigation and the author will be contacted to expeditiously resolve the problem raised.

Duplicated publication

No work submitted to the magazine must have been previously published or have been submitted simultaneously to another magazine. If it is detected that the same work has been published in another journal, the work will be retracted and a retraction note will be added explaining that the author duplicated the publication.

J. Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement

The publication of works in Revista de postgrados de Derecho del CUNORI constitutes a process of permanent knowledge production. The magazine promotes the publication of open access digital articles. Furthermore, it considers that it is its duty to ensure the transmission of scientific knowledge, guaranteeing its rigor and quality, under an ethical commitment to the scientific and academic community. The protocols and guidelines described here are good practices commonly practiced in publishers of international prestige. In this line, the Code of Conduct that, for editors of scientific journals, has been established by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) is taken as a reference.

Duties and responsabilities
Revista de postgrados de Derecho del CUNORI is committed to:

• ensure the quality of the scientific material published
• ensure freedom of expression
• maintain the academic integrity of its content, ensuring that the material it publishes conforms to internationally accepted ethical standards.
• be willing to publish corrections, clarifications, retractions and apologies when necessary.

Authors' duties
Authors must guarantee authorship of the documents they present. Authorship belongs to those who have made a significant contribution to the work. If the work has significant contributions from more than one author, they must be listed as co-authors.
Authors must provide contact information to facilitate communication from other researchers regarding the published work. These data will be disseminated along with it.

Originality and plagiarism

Authors must guarantee that they have the rights that they present in their work, as well as that they have made use of the right to cite the work of other authors.
Those originals in which plagiarism is detected will be rejected. Likewise, an author must not submit originals that describe essentially the same work that he has already published in another work.

Peer review process

The decisions of the members of the editorial committee to accept or reject a document for publication are based solely on the relevance of the work, its originality and expository clarity, as well as the relevance of the study in relation to the editorial line.
It is guaranteed that the material submitted for publication will be considered reserved and confidential matter while it is evaluated and, if rejected, no evaluating member will be able to make the original public.
The identity of the evaluators is protected at all times, guaranteeing their anonymity.

Complaints

Revista de postgrados de Derecho del CUNORI is committed to responding promptly to complaints received. In any case, if the interested parties are unable to satisfy their claims, it is considered that they have the right to raise their protests to other bodies.

Personal data protection

Revista de postgrados de Derecho del CUNORI guarantees the confidentiality of individual information. It is the ultimate responsibility of the authors to have the relevant authorizations for the use of the images and trademarks that appear in their works, as well as other personal data (age, sex, social level, etc.).

Follow-up of malpractices
Revista de postgrados de Derecho del CUNORI assumes its obligation to act accordingly in case of suspicion of bad practices or inappropriate conduct. Manuscripts that raise concerns about possible misconduct will be rejected.
All reasonable efforts will be made to ensure that the work submitted for evaluation is rigorous and ethically appropriate.

Integrity and academic rigor
Whenever it is known that any published work contains material inaccuracies, misleading or distorted statements, it must be corrected immediately.
If any work is detected whose content is fraudulent, it will be removed as soon as it is known, immediately informing both readers and indexing systems.

Complaints
Any author, reader or evaluator can send their complaints through the Revista de postgrados de Derecho del CUNORI email:

K. Cookies policy

In order for this site to function properly, we sometimes install small data files, known as cookies, on users' devices. Most big websites do this too.

What are cookies?
A cookie is a small text file that websites install on the computer or mobile device of users who visit them. Cookies make it possible for the website to remember the user's actions and preferences (login ID, language, font size and other display preferences), so that the user does not have to reconfigure them when they return to the site or browse. its pages.

How do we use cookies?
On some pages we use cookies to remember:

Your display preferences (for example, contrast, color, or font size)
If you have already responded to a pop-up survey about the usefulness of certain content (so as not to ask you to do so again)
Whether or not you have given your consent for us to use cookies on our website.

Although cookies are not essential for the website to function, if you enable them you will enjoy a better browsing experience. You can delete or block cookies, but if you do so some of the features of this website may not work properly.

The information associated with cookies is not used to personally identify the user. Furthermore, we keep data about your browsing patterns fully under our control. These cookies are used exclusively for the purposes indicated here.

How to control cookies?
You can control or delete cookies whenever you wish: for more information, see aboutcookies.org. In addition to being able to delete all cookies already on your computer, you can also set most browsers to stop accepting them. But keep in mind that if you reject cookies, you may have to manually reconfigure your preferences each time you visit a site and certain services and features may no longer work.

L. Archiving policy and preservation of works

Archiving policy of works

Regarding the policy for archiving the submitted work: The publishing entity allows authors to archive the version of their submitted work on their website, institutional or prepublication repository. The author does not need to ask express permission from the publishing entity to archive these files. In addition, the author retains copyright ownership of the submitted version of his or her work. Likewise, the version of the work submitted will be under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license (CC BY 4.0). Likewise, there is no embargo period in the archiving of the submitted version of the work.

Regarding the archiving policy for accepted works: The publishing entity allows authors to archive the version of their accepted work on their website or institutional repository. The author does not need to ask express permission from the publishing entity to archive these files. The editorial body will allow the accepted version of the work to be archived on the journal's website. In addition, the author retains copyright ownership of the accepted version of his or her work. Likewise, the accepted version of the work will be under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license (CC BY 4.0). Likewise, there is no embargo period in archiving the accepted version of the work.

Regarding the archiving policy of published work: The publishing entity allows authors to archive the version of their published work on any website. The author does not need to ask express permission from the publishing entity to archive these files. However, the only condition is that the author mentions the magazine as the place where the work is published. In addition, the author retains ownership of copyright over the published version of his or her work. Likewise, the published version of the work will be under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license (CC BY 4.0). Likewise, there is no embargo period in archiving the published version of the work.

Preservation of works

The works published in the journal are preserved long-term in digital format. Digital preservation involves a series of processes and actions to ensure long-term access to content and that information is available in digital formats. Preservation periods vary according to each of the strategies implemented by the publisher.

Backup of the journal's website: all the contents of the journal, including the different versions of the works (submitted, accepted and published), are backed up weekly in a backup that is located on a server different from that of the journal's website. In case of any failure, the backup of the journal's website can be obtained within 1 hour.
Backing up works on the PKP PN network: The journal participates in the Public Knowledge Project Private LOCKSS Network (PKP PN) digital preservation network, which allows for long-term digital preservation in the event the journal goes offline. The PKP PN digital preservation network allows works to be immediately archived once they are published.
Indices: indices preserve relevant information about the works such as their metadata. Likewise, there are other academic indexing databases that store electronic versions of works. The above allows the academic community to access copies of the articles as an alternative. All articles published are accessible through Google Scholar
Self-Archiving Policy: Authors are allowed to self-archive different versions of their work (submitted, accepted, and published). In addition, it allows you to have a backup of the version sent and accepted on a prepublication server, author's website or institutional repository. In addition, it allows the author to make a backup of the published version of the work on any website as long as the journal is mentioned as the place where it was published.

Preservation policy of the journal

The publisher considers it important that the content published in its editorial projects be preserved in the long term. Likewise, he believes it is essential that readers, researchers and authors can access content published digitally. Therefore, it is considered essential that its contents are periodically backed up in at least 2 different locations. These backups will be taken periodically each week on different servers that can be accessed by any member of the editorial team. Likewise, it will allow authors to self-archive their works following the guidelines set out in the archiving policy for the different versions of the works.

M. Artificial intelligence use policy

Due to the increase in the use of artificial intelligence in academic works, the publishing entity establishes the following policy:

Coauthorship with artificial intelligence

The publisher expects that the submissions are the creations of the authors and not of artificial intelligence tools. Therefore, the publishing entity does not allow authors to exclusively use artificial intelligence tools (e.g. ChatGPT, etc.) for the creation of works. Artificial intelligence tools cannot be co-authors of the work because they do not meet the minimum requirements for authorship of works. If it is detected that a work was created mostly with artificial intelligence tools, it will be rejected or retracted.

Artificial intelligence use as a tool in methods of studies

Authors are allowed to use only artificial intelligence tools as part of the methodology used in studies. In these cases, the authors must report the following:

Name of the artificial intelligence tool
Description of how the artificial intelligence tool was used
Evaluation of the validity of the results obtained using this artificial intelligence tool
Aspects of the study, contents, data and files that were modified and/or generated by the artificial intelligence tool

The use of artificial intelligence tools to fabricate or manipulate data in the study is unacceptable. The above will lead to the rejection of the shipment or retraction of the published work.

Generation of images aided by artificial intelligence

The publisher prohibits the generation and use of images in works with the help of artificial intelligence tools. It is only possible to use images generated with artificial intelligence as long as you have the corresponding copyright permissions and are free of legal disputes.

Artificial intelligence use by peer reviewers

Peer reviewers play a fundamental role in the publication of academic works. Their experience and evaluation of the works guide the editor in the decisions that must be made. Peer reviewers are directly responsible for the opinions and recommendations they provide in the opinions they provide to the editor. Therefore, the publishing body does not allow peer reviewers to use artificial intelligence tools to evaluate works or generate arbitration opinions.

About the Journal

Language

Make a Submission

info

Information

Keywords