About the Journal

1. BIBLIOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION

Journal title: Revista Eurolatinoamericana de Derecho Administrativo
Journal abbreviation: Rev. Eurolatin. de Derecho Adm.
Journal initials: REDOEDA
ISSN: 2362-583X
Publication by: Ediciones UNL / REDOEDA – Red Docente Eurolatinoamericana de Derecho Administrativo
City of publication: Santa Fe, Santa Fe, Argentina
Publication Frequency: Bi-annual
Publication modality: Rolling Publication
Format: Electronic (online)
Access: Open
Languages of publication: English, Spanish, Portuguese, Italian, and French
Year of creation of the journal: 2014

2. FOCUS AND SCOPE

Revista Eurolatinoamericana de Derecho Administrativo (ISSN 2362-583X) is an electronic, open-access, peer-reviewed scientific journal with a biannual publication frequency (and a rolling publication model). It is published by Ediciones UNL and promoted by REDOEDA – the Eurolatinoamerican Network of Administrative Law Professors, a network of universities from Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Spain, France, and Italy. The journal's mission is to publish high-quality scientific articles on Administrative Law within European and Latin American contexts. Its target audience includes scholars, researchers, and law students from different countries with an interest in Administrative Law.

The journal’s editorial line aligns with the primary research areas of the Network, focusing on the study of Administrative Law, particularly issues related to the relationship between Public Administration and globalization, social inclusion, anti-corruption efforts, public procurement, fundamental rights, and the constitutionalization of law.

3. BRIEF HISTORY

Revista Eurolatinoamericana de Derecho Administrativo was founded in 2014 under the initiative of its General Director (Prof. Dr. Justo Reyna) and its Editor-in-Chief (Prof. Dr. Daniel Wunder Hachem), both members of the Executive Council of REDOEDA – the Eurolatinoamerican Network of Administrative Law Professors. The journal’s creation was based on three primary objectives: (i) to establish an open-access scientific journal in the field of Administrative Law, meeting the high editorial quality standards set by COPE – the Committee on Publication Ethics – and the most prominent international indexing databases ; (ii) to create a platform for disseminating research on Administrative Law from various countries, particularly in Europe and Latin America, contributing to the study of Ibero-American Administrative Law ; (iii) to promote scientific articles on REDOEDA's thematic focus areas as a means of enriching research in the Network's priority fields.

The structure of the Editorial Team, Editorial Policies, and Author Guidelines was designed following a thorough analysis of international quality standards for scientific journals. As a result, the journal was indexed in three of the most rigorous and prestigious international databases: Scopus (2021), Redalyc (2021), and SciELO (2022).

4. PUBLICATION FREQUENCY

The Journal adopts the method of rolling publication. Two issues are released per year, one every six months:

Issue n. 1 (January/June)
Issue n. 2 (July/December)

Articles are inserted continuously into published issues, according to approval and layout, without the need to close a complete issue for publication. Each article is published within an issue with its own table of contents and identified within that issue using the e-location (code composed of the letter “e” and three digits - example: e231).

5. PEER REVIEW PROCESS

5.1. Articles are selected through peer review, in two stages: (i) internal review by the Editorial Board (desk review); and (ii) external peer review, which may take different forms in accordance with Open Science practices, as described below.

5.2. In the desk review stage, the article is checked to see whether it strictly complies with all the requirements set forth in the Guidelines for Authors, such as authorship requirements, respect for the number of pages, compliance with the journal's methodological standards regarding citations and bibliographic references, the theme's fit within the editorial line, originality and innovation of the approach, quality of writing, among others. In the event of non-compliance with any of the guidelines, whether for reasons of form or content, the article will be rejected outright.

5.3. Once approved in the desk review stage, the article is submitted to the peer review procedure, adopting the double-blind method as the initial standard: double anonymity of the author and the reviewers. The article is sent without identification of authorship to at least two reviewers who are members of the journal's Board of Reviewers or designated ad hoc, affiliated with national and foreign higher education institutions.

5.4. Authors who choose to deposit their articles on preprint servers are aware that the deposit makes the work public and allows possible identification of authorship, so that reviewers may occasionally come to know the authorship of the reviewed work. In this case, the double blind peer review process (with double anonymity, of the author and the reviewers) becomes single blind peer review (peer review with simple anonymity), in which only the anonymity of one of the parties to the process – the reviewers – is guaranteed.

5.5. In accordance with Open Science practices, the author has the option of authorizing the editors to promote their direct interaction with the reviewers of the article, waiving the anonymous nature of the review, if the reviewers also agree. In this case, the open peer review modality is adopted. This option must be expressed by the author at the time of submission of the article, in the Form 1 - Authors data and open science compliance, available for download at: https://bibliotecavirtual.unl.edu.ar/publicaciones/index.php/Redoeda/libraryFiles/downloadPublic/38. If this modality is adopted, the authors agree that the journal will grant the reviewers the possibility of publishing the reviews in the same issue in which the article will be published.

5.6. To be approved, the article must receive two favorable opinions for publication, either as it is or through corrections suggested by the reviewers. If there is at least one opinion for rejection, the article may be rejected, if the Editorial Board considers the reasons for this to be sufficient. In the event of a dispute between the two reviewers, the article will be submitted to a third reviewer.

5.5. The criteria used in the evaluation form are as follows:

a) Is the reviewer in a position to evaluate the article, since there is no conflict of interest?

b) Does the article address a topic that falls within the focus and scope of the journal (https://bibliotecavirtual.unl.edu.ar/publicaciones/index.php/Redoeda/about)?

c) Is the definition of the topic and the approach to the research original, innovative and relevant, distinct from other publications on the topic, to the point of justifying a new publication on the subject?

d) Is the text well written, clear and cohesive, free of typos and spelling errors?

e) Does the title clearly and sufficiently reflect the content of the article?

f) Does the article comply with the formatting and scientific methodology standards described in the Guidelines for Authors (ABNT)?

g) Does the abstract indicate the research problem, the objectives of the article, the methodology used and the main conclusions of the research?

h) Does the article present an extensive and in-depth bibliographic survey, which includes a significant number of specific and updated bibliographic references that already exist on the topic?

i) Are the topics covered in the article explored in theoretical depth, examining the issue under debate from different perspectives and considering arguments contrary to those defended in the article?

j) Does the article present arguments and effective contributions developed by the author of the article himself, without relying on excessively long direct quotations from other authors?

k) Are the concepts used throughout the text generally correct?

l) Does the content comply with the criteria of not disseminating prejudice and/or defamation and slander that harm the integrity of the readers and/or individuals cited?

5.6. The possible results of the evaluation process are as follows:

a) Article without restrictions on scientific content; may be accepted for publication.
b) Article with minor restrictions; may be accepted as long as the corrections indicated in the review are made.
c) Article with major restrictions on content; should not be accepted for publication.

5.7. The evaluation process usually takes up to 2 months in cases of rejection by desk review, and 3 to 6 months in cases of submission of the article for peer review.

6. DIGITAL PRESERVATION AND ARCHIVING

The journal follows the standards defined in the Digital Preservation Policy of the SciELO Program. It uses the LOCKSS system to create a distributed archive system among the participating libraries and allows the creation of permanent archives of the journal for preservation and restoration.