Content and format: It is only accepted original and unpublished articles, in both Word and PDF format.
Along with the manuscript, supplementary files may be submitted. Due to the nature of the journal, the most common types include, but are not limited to, research-related datasets (accepted in .doc, .pdf, .xlsx, .csv) and images (accepted in .png format). The size of the supplementary files must be supported by the journal's management platform. These files will be shared upon publication of the article.
Extension: It is suggested that the manuscripts not exceed 15,000 words. Within the section Conjectures and refutations, the latter should not exceed 5,000 words.
Review: Once received, all manuscripts will be subject to a first formal revision by the editorial board and, if approved, to a second double-blind peer-review process.
Languages: Manuscripts in Spanish, English, Italian, and Portuguese will be accepted.
All manuscripts should be written using 12-point Times New Roman font and applying a 1.5 spacing. Each paragraph should begin with an indentation.1. Font and size
All notes should be typed single-spaced using 10-point Times New Roman font, without any indentation. Notes should be numbered consecutively starting from the number 1.2. Notes
Titles and subtitles should be structured in the following order: 1, 1.1, 1.1.1, 1.1.2, 2, and so on.3. Titles and subtitles
All original ideas and data taken from other sources and individuals must be properly cited, following the APA (7th edition) style.4. References
The reference list must include all sources cited in the main text. It should be arranged alphabetically by the author's last name, according to the APA (7th edition) format, at the end.5. Bibliographic References
6. Other criteria
Articles published in Quaestio facti are evaluated as follows:
1. All texts received are subject to formal review by the journal's editorial board. In this phase of general review, proposals are discarded when they are not in line with the objectives of the journal and/or the scientific quality is not of the desired standard.
Authors of articles rejected for non-compliance with the formal requirements set out in the “Guidelines for Authors” section are given a period of 10 days to correct deficiencies.
Articles accepted in this first instance are submitted for evaluation following the blind peer review process.
2. The blind peer review consists of the review and evaluation of the article by experts in the field, chosen by the editorial board, according to their skills and knowledge.
The authors of articles are unknown to reviewers, just as authors do not know who reviews their articles.
The articles in the "Essays" section are subject to double blind peer review, that is to say they are evaluated by two different experts. The articles in the “Conjectures and refutations”, “Science for legal proceedings” and “Iuris prudentia” sections follow the same review process conducted by a single expert.
Reviewers are committed to conducting a critical, honest, and constructive review of the scientific quality of the text within the scope of their knowledge and skills. Therefore, they will only review a work if they are competent in the subject to be reviewed and if there are no conflicts of interest.
Reviewers should issue a report to the journal board detailing whether the article meets the criteria defined by the journal. These are:
- The title reflects the content of the text
- The structure of the text is coherent
- The wording is correct and clear
- The bibliography is up-to-date and properly referenced
- If the article contains significant contributions to the thematic area of the journal
Furthermore, the report determines if the article reviewed:
Is accepted
Is accepted with the condition of incorporating the proposed modifications. The time allowed to make changes will depend on each item and the suggested changes
Is not accepted
Should the reports of an article conclude with opposing opinions, the opinion of a third reviewer would be sought.
Quaestio facti will inform authors in due time and manner about the acceptance or rejection of their work, within a maximum period of five months.
Through the journal's platform, the author will receive the anonymized review form completed by the reviewer, along with comments and suggestions.
If the author accepts the suggested changes, they will be given an appropriate amount of time for the correction of the final version. The author must submit the new version through the platform or via the journal's email.
The editorial team will send the new version of the manuscript to the same reviewer(s), and if they accept the changes, the article will be sent for layout formatting.
The journal and the editors are commited to produce a layout and edition of the accepted articles ensuring a respectful edition regarding the style and ideas of each author. For this reason, the author will approve the final layout before publication.
Once the layout is accepted it will be published immediately on the journal's website. The final publication of the article will coincide with the publication of the full issue in January or June of the corresponding year, depending on the section of which it is part.
Guarantee of blind peer review
To ensure that the evaluation of the articles follows the premises of blind review, the authors are asked to send a copy of the article without any personal or identifying data.
Similarly, during the formal review phase, the editorial board verifies that the blind copy of the article meets the required conditions.
The submission of articles for publication in Quaestio facti: International Journal on Evidential Reasoning implies acceptance of the following terms:
(a) The author agrees to respect the ethical guidelines of the journal.
(b) Quaestio facti is granted the right of first publication and the license to publish the submitted text in all and printed and electronic formats of the journal.
(c) The author retains copyright and assigns Marcial Pons exclusive publishing rights and non-exclusive exploitation rights (reproduction, distribution, public communication, and transformation) to exploit and commercialize the work, in full or in part, in all present or future formats and modes of exploitation, in all languages, for the entire lifetime of the work and throughout the world.
(d) Content published in Quaestio facti is subject to a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license (CC BY), the full text of which is available at http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0. Therefore, copying, distribution, public communication, commercial use and derivative works of the contents of the journal are permitted provided that the source of the publication (Quaestio facti), the author of the article, the publisher (Marcial Pons) and the institution that publishes it (Chair of Legal Culture, University of Girona) is cited. It is the responsibility of the authors to obtain the necessary permissions for the images that may be subject to Copyright.
(e) For the purposes of any reprint, abbreviation or translation of an article from any of its sections, Quaestio facti undertakes to request authorization without delay from each author of the work in question, so that he or she may decide whether to authorize such publication.
(f) The authors who decide to republish their work in another journal or book must use the preprint version of the article, maintaining the rights of Marcial Pons referred to in section c), and should mention the previous appearance of the contribution in Quaestio facti.
(g) In accordance with section e), authors are allowed to deposit their work in general and/or thematic repositories, web pages, etc., for the preprint version (version sent for review), postprint version (once reviewed and accepted for publication) and the final published article. This self-archiving policy contributes to the dissemination and visibility of articles published in the journal and of Quaestio facti.Quaestio facti: International Journal on Evidential Reasoning adheres to the guidelines set by EASE (European Association of Science Editors) for the management, editing, review and publication of scientific results in journals from different fields of knowledge and to the principles of transparency and good practice in academic publications of COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics).
The following commitments and procedures are defined in accordance with those guidelines.
An author is considered to be anyone who meets the following three criteria: 1) Has contributed significantly and substantially to the structuring, content, data collection, design, and/or interpretation of the study; 2) Has written or critically analyzed the article during its review and 3) Approves the final version of the manuscript and is responsible for all aspects of the work.
The order of authorship must be agreed upon by all listed members and should follow a logic from greatest to least contribution. If contributions are equal, the list should be arranged alphabetically.
If the authors deem it appropriate, they are encouraged to include an authorship statement clarifying the contributions made by each author.
Given the suspicion and/or knowledge that bad practice or unethical behaviour have been perpetuated in either published works or those that are in the process of being revised or edited, publishers will undertake appropriate measures to identify such irregularities and/or resolve them. To do this, the editors:
If bad practices are detected during the editing process and the author corrects them, the process will continue. If the author does not accept the proposals or the explanations are considered insufficient, the article will be rejected.
If these unethical behaviours are discovered after the publication of the article, an editorial note will be published, the article will be withdrawn and/or legal action will be taken, depending on the severity.
The Directors, members of the Redaction Committee, members of the Editorial Board and the Advisory Board urge the submission of complaints and appeals regarding possible misconduct in articles published in Quaestio facti, as well as of the journal itself, and undertake to respond to them.
Any such communication may be sent to the e-mail of the journal (quaestiofacti@udg.edu) or through the “Contact” section of the website.
As a specific anti-plagiarism measure, the journal's editorial committee will submit all texts received to Ouriginal, a plagiarism detection program.
It will be considered plagiarism whenever phrases, fragments of works (published either in physical or digital format), fragments of works or thought structures that are not authored by the person who submits the work are used without the corresponding citation acknowledging the authorship. If the reproduction is literal, in addition, the citation of the source will only be considered legitimate if the reproduced sentences are enclosed in guillemets. Also, whenever texts are reproduced with slight changes, using synonymous words or mere translations of the original without the citation of the source or the use of guillemets it will be deemed plagiarism.
Plagiarism is considered serious unethical behaviour and, as such, all articles suspected of plagiarism will be rejected or removed immediately if they have been published. The journal's table of content will include the articles removed for plagiarism indicating so.
Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools cannot, under any circumstances, be listed or considered as part of the authorship of an article. They cannot make reasoned and critical decisions, which is why they are considered incapable of bearing any responsibility for the submitted manuscripts under review, failing to meet one of the essential criteria that define an author.
If the author uses AI tools for writing, generating images or graphic elements, collecting data, or any part of the manuscript creation process, this must be disclosed in the text, specifying which tool was used, for what purpose, and how. The use of AI tools does not exempt the author, under any circumstances, from responsibility for the content, including that generated by AI.
The editorial team does not use AI in the selection of reviewers and does not allow reviewers to use these tools to make decisions regarding the publication of the assigned manuscript.
We are committed to maintaining a balanced editorial composition between women and men to achieve a more accurate representation of reality.
We will strive to ensure equal representation of men and women serving as reviewers in our journal.
We encourage the use of full author names in publications.
Quaestio facti recommends the use of inclusive and non-sexist language in submitted articles.
As an academic journal associated with the University of Girona, we adhere to the UdG Guide for Gender-Equal Language Use.
Based on these guidelines, we recommend:
We encourage research that, whenever applicable, identifies and incorporates a gender perspective. This means challenging the erroneous assumption that the male perspective is the universal reference, and consequently, that the female perspective is a deviation from it.
Likewise, the variable of sex should be considered in research whenever relevant. In accordance with the Sex and Gender Equity in Research Guidelines (SAGER) and the Practical Guide for the Inclusion of Gender Perspective in Research Content, we recommend: