Norms of Evaluation

1. Reception of the article

a. The author will send the article, accompanied by the affidavit of authorship, publication authorization, and commitment to strictly comply with the rules and procedures that regulate the editorial activity of the Security and Land Power Magazine duly signed.
b. Once the author has sent the article to the journal, they will be sent a confirmation message of receipt.
c. If the author has omitted to accompany the duly signed affidavit mentioned above, he will be required to comply with this requirement. Otherwise, the article will be considered as not presented.

2. Preliminary review of the article

a. The general editor will make a preliminary review of the submitted article, to check if it meets the standards of academic and editorial ethics that are mandatory for the Security and Land Power Magazine, as well as the minimum requirements demanded by the magazine.
b. For this task, the general editor can request the collaboration of the members of the Editorial Board and rely on the work of the magazine's editorial assistants.

3. Stages of the preliminary revision of the article

The preliminary review of the submitted article consists of up to five stages:

a. First stage: Application of computerized programs and other techniques and means of detecting vices of authorship, including cases of plagiarism.

This stage is aimed at establishing:
(1) The level of formal originality of the article, considering the number and importance of the quotes from sources consulted, should not exceed 25% of the total article. In general, the quotes from sources consulted in the research should be brief, and not exceed six lines.
(2) The correct citation of the sources consulted and the absence of vices of authorship, including cases of plagiarism.

b. Second stage: Verification of compliance with the minimum requirements (substantive aspects and form) required by the journal.

(1) The minimum background requirements are:
(a) The thematic relevance of the article concerning the content of the journal in any of its sections. In this sense, the journal reserves the right to determine the section in which the article should be published.
(b) The article must be the result of academic research and be unpublished.
(c) The article must have adequate bibliographical references.

(2) The minimum form requirements are:
a) In the case of academic research articles, they must be between 3,000 and 5,500 words in length. In the case of a book review, it must have an extension of between 800 and 1,000 words.
(b) Indicate the institutional affiliation of the author.
(c) Have a title, abstract, and keywords, and -in general- adhere to the editorial guidelines indicated on the journal's website. In this regard, both the title of the article and the abstract and keywords must also be in English.
(d) Adopt in the article the method of citing consulted sources established on the journal's website.

c. Third stage: Issuance of a Preliminary Observations Report, if any.

(1) If during the preliminary review of the article any alleged irregularity is observed that could constitute an infraction of the mandatory academic and editorial ethics standards in the Security and Land Power Magazine (plagiarism or other vices of authorship), a report will be issued. of preliminary observations that will be communicated to the author so that he can provide the corresponding explanations. However, the purpose of this report is not for the author to modify the original text of the article submitted to the journal.
(2) If during the preliminary review of the article it is observed that it is not unpublished or that it lacks formal originality, the article will be rejected without the possibility of modification.
(3) If during the preliminary review of the article it is observed that it does not meet various formal requirements which, examined together, show a serious disregard for the journal's publication standards, the article will be rejected, without the possibility of modification.
(4) If during the preliminary review of the article it is observed that the article can be modified so that it meets the level of originality required by the journal (25%), a preliminary evaluation report will be submitted. This will happen if the article is relevant to the journal and its initial level of coincidence is not very high.
(5) If during the preliminary review of the article it is observed that there are minor cases of carelessness in the cited article, in which it is possible to request the modification, a preliminary evaluation report will be sent. This will happen if the matching rate is not very high.
(6) Any article that is rejected due to a preliminary evaluation reporting, will not be accepted later for another edition of the magazine.

d. Fourth stage: Elaboration of a Report of Acquittal of Preliminary Observations by the author and the referral of him to the journal.

The author will have 10 calendar days to submit their Preliminary Observations Acquittal Report, which must be sent in a separate document to the journal's email address.

e. Fifth stage: Review of the Report of acquittal of Preliminary Observations and communication of the editorial decision to the author.

(1) In case of assumptions contemplated in sections 3.c.(1). and 3.c.(2), the General Editor shall examine whether said Report is satisfactory. If so, the general editor will determine that the evaluation procedure of the submitted article continues, through the corresponding analysis of its content and academic merit. If it is not, as well as if the aforementioned Preliminary Observations Acquittal Report is not received within the indicated period (10 calendar days), the general editor will notify the author of the decision to reject his article. In this case, the journal reserves the right to inform the institution to which the author is affiliated about the serious irregularity observed, following the rules of academic and editorial ethics that are mandatory for the Security and Land Power Magazine.
(2) In the event of the assumptions contemplated in sections 3.c.(4) and 3.c.(5), the general editor will examine whether said Report is satisfactory. If it were, the general editor will determine that the evaluation procedure of the submitted article continues, through the corresponding analysis of its content and academic merit. If it is not, or if the acquittal of the preliminary observations is partial, the general editor will indicate the subsisting observations to the author, granting him a new term that must not exceed five calendar days. If the author does not correct the remaining observations, the general editor will inform the author of the decision to reject his article. In this case, the article will not be accepted for subsequent editions of the journal.

4. Academic Peer Review

Once the preliminary review of the submitted article has concluded, the academic peer review process will begin, under the double-blind system, under which both the author and the reviewer do not know each other's identities, to achieve an impartial assessment of the article. The reviewers or arbiters, who are experts in the relevant area and are not part of any body of the journal, must issue an opinion that contains a critical and analytical assessment of the article under review, to collaborate with the general editor in the adoption of the decision on whether the article meets the academic quality standards necessary for its publication. In that sense, the peer review process consists of up to seven stages:

a. First stage. Identification of arbiters.

The general editor must identify suitable academics to arbitrate the article admitted to peer review. For this, each article must be evaluated by two arbiters. In this sense, the identification criteria of the peer reviewers are the following:

(1) Academic degree. The academic degree of the reviewer will be -preferably- a doctor.
(2) Thematic affinity. The selection of an arbitrator who has made academic publications on a similar or related topic to that of the article to be examined should be prioritized. If it is an article that is related to two academic areas, an arbitrator must be selected from each of these academic areas, but with experience in the subject of study.
(3) Non-existence of links. The arbiter must have no professional or personal ties to the author. He must not integrate any organ of the magazine either.

b. Second stage. Appointment of arbitrators.

(1) Once the arbiter to be invited has been identified, the general editor, within a maximum period of three days, will issue the corresponding invitation, indicating the title of the article, its abstract, its length, the ethical standards about its mission and the deadline you will have to conduct the work, which should not exceed 15 days. He will also offer you the issuance of a certificate that certifies the arbitration once it is conducted to the satisfaction of the journal.
(2) The invitation will be accompanied by the evaluation template approved by the journal and to be applied by the reviewer, whose main items include the following: (a) originality, (b) methodology, (c) presentation, style, writing, (d) structure and quality of the article (analysis of the title, abstract, introduction, body of the text, conclusions, and bibliographical references).
(3) If the arbiter accepts the invitation, the general editor will immediately send the article to be examined, taking care to eliminate any indication of authorship and any reference that allows the author to be identified, such as citations or bibliographical references, which must be replaced. by the expression "omitted for the arbitration." The general editor will also remove any authorship identifier generated automatically by the computerized word processors with which the article was written.

c. Third stage. Arbitration.

(1) Once the designated arbiter receives the article, he must carry out the review entrusted with academic rigor and promptness. Likewise, he must maintain confidentiality about the article and the editorial process.
(2) If the designated arbitrator observes that he has a conflict of interest or that for any reason he must refrain from conducting the review, he must immediately notify the general editor.
(3) If the appointed arbiter notices that he lacks the academic competence or specialty to assess the article, he must immediately notify the general editor.
(4) The maximum period for issuing the opinion is 15 days. If the arbitrator does not rule within the required term, the general editor will request the opinion granting an additional term, not exceeding 10 days. If no response is found after said request, the general editor will choose to find a new evaluator. Given the circumstances of the case, the general editor may request the arbitrator to rule in a shorter period.

Possible outcomes of the peer review process

(5) The arbiter's ruling must be reflected in the evaluation template previously sent by the journal, and the following results may be given:

(a) Publishable without modification. It is possible, however, that the arbiter makes certain suggestions, which do not qualify as minor observations and that the author can freely accept or reject.
(b) Publishable if it raises minor observations. Minor observations point to the need to modify non-structural or non-essential aspects of the article.
(c) Publishable if it raises major observations. The major observations point to the need to modify structural or essential aspects of the article.
(d) Publishable if it raises major and minor observations. The major and minor observations indicate the need to modify structural or essential aspects of the article and non-structural or non-essential aspects of the article.
(e) Unpublishable for not meeting the minimum requirements. This grade is justified when the article lacks academic merit or shows deficiencies of such a nature or relevance that they require a radical rethinking and a complete change in the writing of the text. Likewise, it is justified if during the peer review it is discovered that the author has committed plagiarism or other serious vices of authorship.

(6) The arbitrator must justify his ruling, detailing the observations made and basing them on the corresponding analysis. Therefore, the opinion must not contain purely subjective judgments.

Resolution of conflicts between opinions

(7) If the opinions of the arbiters differ on non-structural or non-essential aspects of the article, the general editor will adopt the corresponding decision, guided by the most solid and well-founded opinion.
(8) If the opinions of the arbiters differ on structural or essential aspects of the article, and it is not possible to reconcile them, the general editor will determine if he should ask any of the reviewers to make clarifications or further development, eventually informing them of the arguments of the other, who should not be identified.
(9) If this request for clarifications or further developments is not possible, or if the answers do not resolve the difference, the general editor will convene an adjudicating arbitrator if he does not have sufficient elements to assess the academic merit of the article.

d. Fourth stage. Issuance of the Peer Review Report.

(1) Upon receipt of the required opinions, the general editor will prepare the Peer Review Report, for which he will consider the opinion of the arbiters as elements to help the adoption of the editorial decision on the article. Likewise, the general editor will take care not to reveal the identity of the reviewers.
(2) The maximum term for the issuance of the Peer Review Report is seven days after receiving the last required opinion.
(3) In case the result of the Peer Review Report rejects the article, subsequent modifications of it will not be accepted, nor will subsequent applications of the modified version.

e. Fifth stage. Rising observations.

(1) Once the Peer Review Report has been received, the author will inform the journal if he agrees with the observations and, consequently, will make the necessary changes.
(2) The author will send a document to the journal in which he will present how he considers the observations made have been raised, also submitting the new version of the article.
(3) If the author disagrees with any observation and wishes to enter into an academic dialogue with any of the reviewers, the general editor will function as an intermediary, always ensuring the confidentiality and confidentiality of the participants. In the event of an insurmountable disagreement, the general editor will make the final decision, considering the arguments presented.
(4) The maximum terms for the author to raise the observations are:
(a) In the case of minor observations, the maximum term will be 10 days.
(b) In the case of major observations, the maximum term will be 20 days.
(c) In the event of major and minor observations, the maximum term will be 30 days.
(5) Once the term for raising the observations has expired, it will be understood that the author has withdrawn, and his article will be considered as withdrawn.

f. Sixth stage. New consultation with peer reviewers.

(1) Once the document for raising observations and the new version of the article have been received, the general editor will send them to the corresponding reviewers, also accompanying all the necessary information so that they can evaluate if the author has effectively complied with raising the observations.
(2) The reviewer consulted again must issue a briefly substantiated opinion and will decide on one of the following alternatives:
(a) Collect the observations.
(b) Does not raise the observations.

g. Seventh stage. Issuance of the Second Review Report of and Pairs.

(1) Given the opinions obtained from the arbiters again consulted, the general editor will make the final decision on whether the article has merit to be published.
(2) The general editor will prepare a final report and send it to the author giving an account of the decision adopted.
(3) If discrepancies arise between the arbiters about whether the author has raised the observations, the general editor will make the final decision, without it being possible to call an adjudicating arbiter.
(4) The maximum term for the issuance of the Second Peer Review Report is five days after receiving the last required opinion.
(5) Once the final decision to publish his article has been communicated to the author, this is irrevocable unless it is later discovered that the author has committed a serious breach of academic ethics when preparing it.

For any task whose nature admits it, the general editor can request the collaboration of the members of the Editorial Board and rely on the work of the magazine's editorial assistants.

5. Sources for the elaboration of the Evaluation Standards

These Evaluation Standards were prepared based on the following sources:

a. PUCP, Evaluation Norms, PUCP Law (Faculty of Law, Lima), https://revistas.pucp.edu.pe/index.php/derechopucp/normas_evaluacion, (Accessed April 29, 2022).

c. UNMSM, Peer Review, Physics Research Journal (Faculty of Physical Sciences, Lima), https://revistasinvestigacion.unmsm.edu.pe/index.php/fisica/arbitro, (Accessed April 29, 2022).