The works should be sent, without reference to the author's name, to our e-mail. Following the criteria listed in our Methodological Manual and in the Technical Note of the BID Inventory, a brief note listing the reasons for accepting or rejecting the study/case in the Evidence Bank will be sent to the author/applicant, who can send a reply with their arguments if they disagree with the opinion expressed by the Technical Committee. In this case, a new reviewer will carry out the analysis and make a final decision.

For the "types of solutions", the Evidence Bank uses three international platforms that are regarded as international benchmarks for the production, analysis, and compilation of systematic reviews and meta-analyses relevant to the area of security and justice: Crime Solutions, from the Department of Justice (USA); Crime Reduction Toolkit, from the College of Policing (UK); and the Campbell Collaboration, a non-profit organization based in Norway. In addition to these platforms, the Evidence Bank also includes types of solutions that have been identified in the IDB Inventory, an in-house initiative for mapping and analyzing systematic reviews and impact evaluation scientific papers that was coordinated by the IDB's Citizen Security & Justice Division.
For the "evaluated cases", the main sources were, in addition to Crime Solutions and the IDB Inventory, the Blueprints for Healthy Youth Development, organized by the Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence, at the University of Colorado at Boulder, USA; the Evidence-Based Policing Matrix, organized by the Center for Evidence-Based Crime Policy (CEBCP), at George Mason University, USA; the Social Programs that Work (SPTW), a website run by the evidence-based public policy team at Arnold Ventures, a philanthropic organization based in the USA; and the California Evidence-Based Clearinghouse (CEBC), a repository organized and maintained by the Department of Social Services of the Government of California (USA), in partnership with the Chadwick Center for Children and Families.

The inclusion of new types of solutions and/or cases in the Evidence Bank is done taking into account the following criteria:
- For types of solutions: Existence of at least one systematic review and/or meta-analysis that: i. meets the criteria established by the Prisma Checklist; and ii. has been accepted for publication in peer-reviewed scientific journals;
- For evaluated cases: Existence of at least one experimental or quasi-experimental study that has reached at least level 3 of the Maryland Scale.
For more information, see our Methodological Manual and the IDB Inventory Technical Note.

The selection of the types of solutions and evaluated cases that are incorporated into the Evidence Bank is based on one main criterion: the existence of impact evaluations carried out according to international standards of methodological rigor that allow the establishment of causal inference relationships. 
Impact evaluations seek to measure whether changes in the well-being of individuals (for example, a reduction in robberies) can be attributed to a specific project, program or policy (for example, a hot spots policing program). This focus on attributing causality is an intrinsic feature of impact evaluations. The main challenge in an evaluation of this type is therefore to identify the causal relationship between the program or policy and the outcomes of interest. To find out more about different impact evaluation methods, see Impact Evaluation in Practice.
In order to systematize the results of individual studies related to a specific type of solution, there are Systematic Reviews, a form of qualitative research that seeks, based on secondary data, to consolidate the results of relevant studies, always adopting strict criteria to select the specific studies that will be considered in the analysis. In some cases, these reviews are accompanied or complemented by meta-analyses, a quantitative method used in the systematization of evidence whose main objective is to produce a synthesis of the findings of a series of primary/empirical studies.

The Evidence Bank was not conceived, nor is it intended to be, a tool for certifying specific programs and/or practices. Its ambition is to facilitate access to the best available scientific knowledge on the effectiveness of some of the main existing solutions in the field of citizen security and justice.