Chornancap Revista Jurídica adheres to the double-blind peer review policy, following the criteria of originality, contribution of the work, timeliness and contribution to legal knowledge.

The Turnitin iThenticate anti-plagiarism software is used to verify the unpublished and originality of the manuscript, being admissible a maximum of twenty percent (20%) of similarity. The contribution to legal knowledge will be evaluated by the reviewers under the following criteria:

• Reviewers must be specialists in the lines of research of the journal and with expertise in the subject of the manuscript to be evaluated, corroborated by their publications, in addition to their academic level.
• They may be nationals or foreigners. However, considering that the Ilustre Colegio de Abogados de Lambayeque has a large number of jurists and academics as members, they may be reviewers, provided there is no conflict of interest, but in a reduced percentage.
• The reviews will be carried out under the double-blind modality. Evaluators from outside the institution do NOT know the authors' data at the time of the review.
• The acceptance or rejection of the evaluation of an article by the reviewer must be explicit, the rejection will not have negative consequences for the reviewer.
• Once the reviewers evaluate an article, they will be given a certificate that accredits the review performed.

Responsibility of the reviewers

For the issuance of the result regarding the evaluation of the articles, the reviewers must necessarily take into account the following aspects:

• Send the reviewer's opinion within 15 days of receiving the article, extendable if necessary.
• The reviewer's decision is independent and does not depend on the editors' points of view.
• If there is a conflict of interest and it is identified by the reviewer, the reviewer should refrain from refereeing and communicate it to the journal's editorial team.
• The reviewer may issue comments addressed to the authors and the technical team of the journal.

Opinion of the review

The reviewers will issue their opinion, using the article evaluation form, previously submitted, and may resolve:

• Publishable, without modifications: if the article does not need major content changes.
• Publishable, if the suggested changes of form and/or substance are made: if the article needs some clarifications of form, such as corrections of citations, modifications of style or other minor adjustments suggested by the reviewer. Also, if the article needs major changes, involving conceptual aspects or reworking of the theme or structure. The author must absolve these observations and send the reformulated article within a period not exceeding 15 days. The Editorial Team will evaluate whether or not the indications were absolved in a period not longer than 7 days.
• Not publishable: if the article cannot be published for various academic reasons or the research does not meet the editorial quality requirements.

If there is a discrepancy between the two reviewers, the editor will send the manuscript to a third reviewer who will determine, taking into account the opinions of the previous two reviewers, whether the article is approved for publication, approved with revisions or rejected. This stage may not exceed 21 calendar days.

The reviewers will use the following evaluation form: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1zNNIFZ5XNtJRwBrZDD3LCP_0mHu8GIxu/edit

The Editorial Team of the journal will always have the final decision and will be communicated to the corresponding author, in view of the reviewers' reports, for which it will take into account:

• If both peer reviewers accept the manuscript, the publication will be accepted.
• If one of the two peer reviewers does not accept the manuscript, the editorial team should look for a third reviewer, if the third reviewer accepts the manuscript, the publication will be accepted, otherwise the publication will be rejected.
• If both peer reviewers reject the manuscript, the publication will be rejected.

The reviewers' opinions are final and cannot be challenged, unless there is documented evidence of a conditional review or a clear violation of the ethical standards set forth by the journal.

Ethical considerations

Reviewers must conduct themselves in accordance with the ethics and privacy policies of the journal, and therefore may not intervene in the evaluation of articles if they are members of the research team; and their comments must be constructive and clear in the evaluation.