Manuscript Evaluation Criteria

Last update: 04/01/2026

Peer Review Criteria

Pensar – Journal of Legal Sciences adopts standardized criteria to guide manuscript evaluation and ensure consistency, transparency, and editorial quality. Reviews must be objective, substantiated, and respectful, indicating, when possible, the passages of the manuscript that support the evaluation.

The peer review process is part of the editorial workflow detailed in Submission of Manuscripts and follows the principles of editorial transparency established in the Open Science Editorial Policy (item 3 — Open Peer Review).

Deadline for sending the review

The reviewer has 45 days to send the review, counted from the acceptance of the invitation in OJS. In case of need for extension, the reviewer must inform the editorial team with reasonable notice.

Structured review form

The review is prepared through a structured form available in OJS, organized in sections A to I described below. Systematic completion of the form ensures uniformity of reviews and traceability of the editorial process.

Evaluation scale

For each criterion in sections B, C, D, E, and F, the reviewer must assign one of the following levels:

  • Fully meets
  • Partially meets
  • Does not meet
  • Not applicable (N/A)

When the reviewer marks "Partially meets" or "Does not meet", justification is mandatory, preferably with indication of the relevant passages of the manuscript.

Sections and criteria evaluated

A. Eligibility, ethics, and conduct of the reviewer

Verifies:

  • Thematic competence to evaluate the manuscript;
  • Availability to issue a review within the established deadline;
  • Existence of conflicts of interest that justify refusal or recusal;
  • Commitment to the confidentiality of the manuscript and the editorial process;
  • Eventual concerns of scientific integrity observed during reading.

Prohibition of generative AI use: the reviewer is forbidden from submitting the manuscript, identifiable excerpts, or confidential content to generative Artificial Intelligence tools, due to the confidentiality and secrecy of the editorial process. Occasional use of AI as merely accessory support, when admitted by institutional policy, must be informed to the responsible editor (see the Use of Artificial Intelligence policy).

B. Adequacy to the journal and contribution

Evaluates the adherence to the journal's scope, the relevance, and the originality of the manuscript, considering the three thematic axes of Pensar and the transversality of International Articles.

C. Scientific quality and rigor

Examines:

  • Clarity of the problem and objectives;
  • Argumentative coherence;
  • Methodological adequacy (when applicable);
  • Theoretical foundation;
  • Use of sources;
  • Soundness of conclusions.

D. Research ethics and risks (when applicable)

Considers specific requirements when there is research with human subjects or sensitive data, as well as potential legal or reputational risks (secrecy, undue identification, sensitive content). Linked to the Publication Ethics policy.

E. Open science, transparency, and reproducibility (when applicable)

Evaluates declarations and practices of transparency (for example, availability of data, materials, and codes) and methodological sufficiency for verification, when pertinent, in line with the FAIR principles.

F. Editorial quality (form)

Verifies:

  • Adequacy of title, abstract, and keywords;
  • Clarity of writing;
  • Standardization of citations and references;
  • Adequacy of the bibliographic repertoire (currency, scope, diversity of sources).

G. Comments to the author

Brings together synthesis of the evaluation, strengths of the manuscript, and improvement guidelines. Mandatory corrections must be explicitly prioritized for eventual acceptance. Comments must be constructive, substantiated, and respectful.

H. Confidential comments to the editor

Intended for sensitive issues (ethics, conflicts of interest, integrity, legal or reputational risks) and inputs for the editorial decision. They are not shared with the authors.

I. Final recommendation

Records the reviewer's recommendation, with objective justification. Available recommendations are:

  • Accept (with or without formal adjustments);
  • Accept with minor revisions (simple revision);
  • Accept with major revisions (resubmission and new evaluation);
  • Reject with possibility of new submission (after substantial reformulation);
  • Reject definitively.

The reviewer's recommendation is considered by the editorial team, but the final decision rests with the editorial team, which may adopt additional editorial, strategic, or ethical criteria.

Publicity of reviews (transparency)

The journal admits, when authorized by the parties, the publication of the content of the reviews together with the approved article. Eventual publication occurs only at the end of the editorial process and only in case of approval of the article.

  • If the author selects Open Peer Review in the Submission Form, the reviewer will indicate whether they authorize the availability of their review (in full or in part), with or without nominal identification;
  • If the author opts for Double Blind Peer Review, the reviews may be published anonymously in an Editorial Decision Note, upon express agreement of the reviewer;
  • When there is publication, the review may undergo formal editing by the responsible editor (without alteration of substantial content), preserving the meaning and integrity of the evaluation.

The Editorial Decision Note may include, as applicable: identification of the responsible editors, structured synthesis of recommendations, revision requirements, similarity index obtained through Crossref Similarity Check / iThenticate, and substantiated editorial decision (see item 3.3 of the Open Science Editorial Policy).

Related documents