About the Journal
Statement on publication ethics and misconduct
Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI)
Guide for non-sexist language use
Focus and Scope
IDP. Journal of Internet, Law and Politics is an e-journal produced by the UOC's Faculty of Law and Political Science. It aims to communicate and disseminate research, on the challenges and issues that technology – and the Internet in particular – poses in the fields of law, political science, public administration, criminology and international relations. The papers published are based on the results of original research.
Specifically, the thematic areas of the journal are those that spark reflection and discussion on the changes and the scope of the impact that technology and its constant advance have on fundamental rights, freedom of expression in the network, personal data protection, intellectual property, e-commerce, cybercrime, e-government and, in general, the formulation of public policies for the digital field. And they do so both from the point of view of theoretical reflection and by presenting specific experiences in some of these fields.
Occasionally, depending on the editorial interest, call for papers are opened to produce a special issue, although the special issue may also maintain the articles' section of the thematic areas of the journal.
Submission and publication languages
IDP’s primary publishing language is Spanish, English and Catalan. Authors can submit originals in these three languages.
All papers published in IDP, whether submitted in Catalan, Spanish or English, are edited and revised for style and format. At the discretion of the Editorial Board, some articles can be translated into Catalan, Spanish or English. Likewise, the title, abstract and keywords of all articles are published in Catalan, Spanish and English.
Peer Review Process
IDP only publishes original work. Papers may be submitted on any of the subjects covered by the journal. Submitted papers will be subject to a double-blind peer-review process involving at least two experts in the relevant fields proposed by the journal’s editorial board.
IDP has its own reviewer database, including reviewers’ name, affiliation, e-mail address, specialization, the languages they can review in, and the name of the person who recommended them to the editorial board.
IDP allows and encourages authors to suggest reviewers for their papers.
Guarantee of blind review
As detailed in the author guidelines, authors must deliver their articles without any personal details (name and surname, email address, academic ties and brief CV). This information must be enclosed in a separate file.
As part of the review process, the identity of both the authors of the papers being reviewed and the reviewers will be kept secret.
The review process will also include methodological aspects.
The editorial board will notify authors of its decision, indicating its reasons for accepting, rejecting or requesting the revision of the paper and including the external experts’ opinions.
IDP regularly revises the forms used by reviewers, as well as the quality of reviewers’ reports.
Phases of the article review process
Phase 1: Sending of original
Phase 2: Assessment of the original by external peer reviewers, who are experts in the corresponding subject area.
Phase 3: Sending of the result of the review to the journal's director.
The reviewers send the results of their assessment and their proposed ruling to the journal's director.
Phase 4: Communication of the result of the review to authors.
Accepted: An article is approved if the result of the two reviews is positive.
Not accepted: An article is declined if the result of the two reviews is negative.
Accepted (with modifications): The results of the reviews propose substantial changes to the content by authors before the article can be approved definitively.
Should the results from the two reviews differ, there is a second round of reviews with al least one different reviewer from the corresponding subject area, until a majority decision is reached.
IDP will notify authors of its decision to accept or reject a paper within an average of three months of receiving it.
Publication Frequency
IDP. Internet, Law and Politics Journal publishes its full issue semiannual, in March and in October, although the publication of the articles is on-line first as of March 2019.
Open Access Policy
This journal provides immediate open access to its content on the principle that making research freely available to the public supports a greater global exchange of knowledge.
Authors may deposit their works in open-access repositories, whether before peer-review (as pre-prints) or after (as post-prints).
This journal does not ask for neither submission charges nor article processing charges (APC).
Archiving Policy
The archiving policy and long-term preservation of articles published in the journal IDP is provided by RACO (CSUC) and Internet Archive.
The preservation by LOCKSS is under consideration.
Statement on publication ethics and misconduct
The Universitat Oberta de Catalunya (Open University of Catalonia, UOC) is committed to upholding the highest standards of quality and integrity in the publication of scientific articles, in accordance with the guidelines set out in its own Code of Ethics (in Catalan), the Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors (Committee on Publication Ethics, COPE), and CSE's White Paper on Promoting Integrity in Scientific Journal Publications (Council of Science Editors, CSE). The UOC aims to satisfy the needs of authors and readers alike, ensuring the quality of articles published in its journals, protecting and respecting all rights pertaining to the content of articles, and respecting the integrity of all submissions and published work.
The Editorial Board of IDP undertakes to publish all corrections, clarifications, retractions and apologies as and when they are required. As part of its commitment to best practice, IDP makes publicly available the evaluation system for submitted articles and the criteria applied in the external peer review process. IDP regularly updates these criteria, which are intended to ensure the scientific relevance, originality, clarity and pertinence of published articles.
IDP maintains full confidentiality throughout the evaluation process, protecting the anonymity of authors and external reviewers, the reviewed content, the reviewers' report and any other communication issued by the editorial, advisory and scientific boards, as required. Equally, it applies the strictest standards of confidentiality to any clarifications, claims or complaints that an author may wish to refer to any of the journal's boards or to the external reviewers.
IDP undertakes to respect the integrity of all published work. As such, IDP will be particularly vigilant in identifying and sanctioning cases of plagiarism. Any manuscript that is found to plagiarize published work (articles are analyzed by a plagiarism detection tool) will be removed from the journal or barred from publication, as the case may be. The journal will act as swiftly as possible in all such cases. In agreeing to the terms of the journal, authors undertake to ensure that the articles they submit and all of the associated materials contain only original work and that they do not infringe on the rights of third parties. In the case of shared authorship, a clear statement must be made to the effect that all authors have agreed to the content of the manuscript and that the work has not been published previously in any other form.
Authorship
The authors of articles submitted for publication must ensure that the material they submit to IDP is original work and that it does not contain fragments of work published either by themselves or by other authors. In submitting a manuscript, the authors must also guarantee the accuracy of the data presented therein, which must not have been altered to verify the experimental hypothesis or hypotheses put forward.
Authors must ensure that the materials consulted during the preparation of their article are the most recent and relevant in the field with which the research is concerned and that they have given due consideration to all current schools of thought on the subject matter.
Authors must clearly identify all those individuals who have made a significant scientific contribution to the conceptual design and planning of the study, the interpretation of the results and the writing of the article. The list of authors must be ordered hierarchically to reflect the degree of responsibility of each author and their respective roles in the study.
All authors accept responsibility for the content of the manuscript.
Peer review
Reviewers undertake to produce a critical, sincere, constructive and impartial evaluation of submissions and to complete their review in the shortest time possible, to ensure that the deadlines of the evaluation process are met.
Reviewers are only assigned to a manuscript if they have the necessary expertise in the relevant field and are not affected by any conflicts of interest.
The reviewers will submit a full and thorough report, complete with the necessary references, in compliance with the terms of the evaluation process and any applicable public standards, particularly when rejecting a submission. In addition, reviewers must notify the Editorial Board of any part of the manuscript that has already been published or is under consideration for publication in another journal.
Reviewers must ensure that they have no conflicts of interest with regard to the research presented in the article, the author/s, and the sources of funding for the project.
Once the Editorial Board has verified that the article conforms to the standards on content and style indicated in the editorial criteria, it will send the article to two anonymous experts, not affiliated to the authors' home institution, for a double blind review.
The reviewers' evaluation of the article will focus on its interest to the scientific community, the novelty of its contribution to existing knowledge of the subject matter, the accuracy of the relationships it establishes with other work, the critical judgement displayed, the bibliographic references used, the quality of writing and presentation of the manuscript, and other standard considerations. Where necessary, recommendations will be made as to how the manuscript can or should be improved.
The Editor of IDP will examine the reviewers' report and notify the author/s of the outcome (fit for publication without changes; fit for publication with minor corrections; fit for publication with major corrections; not fit for publication) by sending an email to the address from which the manuscript was submitted. The reviewers' comments and suggestions will be provided for consideration by the first author.
If the manuscript has been deemed fit for publication with minor or major corrections, the authors must submit a revised version which addresses the external reviewers' comments and suggestions. The authors may also attach a rebuttal letter for the Editorial Board in which they explain the specific changes made to the original submission.
The Editorial Board will determine whether the revised manuscript is fit for publication on the basis of the changes made and the degree to which they successfully address the reviewers' comments and suggestions. The Editor will then notify the authors of the final decision.
Policy on the Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI)
Authorship of texts
Currently, Large Language Models (LLMs) such as ChatGPT do not meet the authorship criteria of the journal. In essence, the attribution of authorship entails responsibility for the work, which cannot be effectively applied to AI tools. The use of an LLM must be properly documented in the Methodology section (or, if there is no Methodology section, in an appropriate alternative section) of the manuscript and should also be indicated in the cover letter to the editor.
Authors must carefully review and edit the final text, as AI can generate results that seem reliable but may be incorrect, incomplete, or biased. Authors should never mention AI or AI-assisted technologies as an author or co-author, nor cite an AI product as an author.
Authorship of images
Generative AI image creation tools have given rise to new legal issues regarding copyright and research integrity. As editors, we strictly follow existing copyright laws and apply best practices regarding publication ethics. Although legal issues related to AI-generated images and videos remain generally unresolved, IDP cannot allow their use for publication.
The exception is images obtained from agencies with which there are contractual relationships. Other exceptions to this policy would be when images and videos are directly referenced in an article specifically dealing with AI; in any case, it will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis.
Please note: Not all AI tools are generative. If non-generative machine learning tools are used to manipulate, combine, or enhance existing images or figures, this should be reported in the document corresponding to the image guidelines when submitted to allow for case-by-case review.
Review process
Peer reviewers play a vital role in scientific publishing. Their expert evaluations and recommendations guide editors in their decisions and ensure that published research is valid, rigorous, and credible. Editors select peer reviewers primarily for their deep knowledge of the subject matter or methods of the work they are asked to evaluate. Peer reviewers are responsible for the accuracy and opinions expressed in their reports, and the peer review process operates on a principle of mutual trust between authors, reviewers, and editors. Despite rapid progress, generative AI tools have considerable limitations: they may lack up-to-date knowledge and can produce nonsensical, biased, or false information. Manuscripts may also include sensitive or proprietary information that should not be shared outside the peer review process. For these reasons, we ask that, while our journal is considering offering our reviewers with access to safe AI tools, reviewers should not submit manuscripts to generative AI tools.
If any part of the evaluation of the claims made in the manuscript was in any way supported by an AI tool, we ask peer reviewers to declare the use of such tools transparently in the peer review report.
This policy on the use of AI is just a starting point (under review). As this field is constantly evolving, we will review and adapt it periodically if necessary.
Guide to non-sexist language use
We recommend the use of an equal and non-sexist language in the article. For more information you can consult this guide: https://www.uoc.edu/portal/en/servei-linguistic/convencions/tractament-generes/index.html
If the sex or gender of the people to whom the study applies is relevant, you should give details of this in the title of the article, the abstract and the design of the research. Please, provide data disaggregated by sex or gender, when appropriate.
Publication Fees
Since the publication costs for IDP are covered by the editing university (UOC) internal budget, authors do not need to pay an article-processing charge (APC) and no waivers are necessary.
Advertisement policy
The journal only displays advertisements that are of relevance to its scope and will be of interest to the readership (e.g. upcoming conferences or call for p