PEER REVIEW PROCESS

Sapiens Sciences (ISSN: 3072-7936) operates a double-blind peer review system, whereby the identities of both authors and reviewers remain anonymous throughout all stages of the editorial process.

This review model is designed to ensure objectivity, impartiality, editorial independence, methodological quality, scientific rigor, and transparency in the evaluation of submitted manuscripts.

The peer review process is conducted in accordance with the principles of scientific integrity, publication ethics, and editorial best practices promoted by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), as well as internationally recognized standards applicable to multidisciplinary scholarly journals.

1. Initial Editorial Evaluation (Desk Review)

All submitted manuscripts undergo a preliminary editorial assessment conducted by the Editor-in-Chief or a designated Academic Editor.

During this stage, the following aspects are evaluated:

• Consistency with the journal’s mission, editorial scope, and research areas.
• Compliance with the Author Guidelines.
• Basic scientific and methodological quality.
• Originality of the content through similarity detection tools.
• Compliance with applicable ethical and regulatory requirements.
• Disclosure of conflicts of interest.
• Funding statement.
• Author contribution statement.
• Data availability statement, where applicable.

Manuscripts that do not meet the minimum standards of scientific quality, thematic relevance, ethical compliance, or editorial requirements may be rejected without external peer review.

Estimated time: 7–15 days.

2. Assignment of External Reviewers

Manuscripts that successfully pass the initial editorial evaluation are generally assigned to at least two independent external reviewers with demonstrated expertise in the subject area under investigation.

Reviewer selection is based on the following criteria:

• Subject-matter expertise.
• Recent scientific output.
• Research experience.
• Academic independence.
• Absence of conflicts of interest.

The journal seeks to maintain an international and multidisciplinary reviewer network, prioritizing specialists with experience in scientific research and publications in peer-reviewed and indexed journals.

Reviewers are given up to seven (7) days to accept or decline the review invitation.

3. Double-Blind Peer Review

Under the double-blind review model, authors do not know the identity of reviewers, and reviewers do not know the identity of authors.

Reviewers evaluate manuscripts based on, but not limited to, the following criteria:

Scientific Quality

• Originality of the research.
• Contribution to scientific knowledge.
• Academic and societal relevance.

Methodological Quality

• Appropriateness of the research design.
• Methodological consistency.
• Validity and reliability of findings.
• Analytical rigor.

Editorial Quality

• Clarity and organization of the manuscript.
• Logical coherence and argumentation.
• Quality of tables, figures, and supplementary materials.
• Relevance and currency of references.

Ethical Considerations

• Compliance with international ethical standards.
• Fulfillment of journal disclosure requirements.
• Integrity and reliability of reported data.

Reviews must be conducted according to principles of objectivity, confidentiality, academic respect, and constructive criticism.

Estimated time: 20–45 days.

4. Confidentiality and Conflicts of Interest

All manuscripts submitted for review are treated as confidential documents.

Reviewers are required to:

• Maintain strict confidentiality regarding the manuscript.
• Refrain from using data, findings, or ideas for personal or third-party benefit.
• Not share manuscript content without prior editorial authorization.
• Declare any actual or potential conflict of interest before accepting the review assignment.

Where a real or perceived conflict of interest exists, the reviewer must decline participation in the evaluation process.

5. Editorial Decisions

Based on reviewers’ reports and the corresponding editorial assessment, the possible editorial decisions are:

Accepted

The manuscript is approved for publication without substantial modifications.

Accepted with Minor Revisions

The manuscript requires limited editorial adjustments or clarifications.

Major Revisions Required and Re-evaluation

The manuscript requires substantial modifications before a new editorial decision can be made.

Rejected

The manuscript does not meet the scientific, methodological, or editorial standards required by the journal.

The final decision rests exclusively with the Editor-in-Chief or the Academic Editor responsible for the manuscript.

6. Reviewer Disagreements

When substantial discrepancies arise between reviewer recommendations, the journal may request an evaluation from a third independent reviewer.

The final editorial decision will be based on the totality of available scientific and technical evidence.

7. Revisions and Additional Review Rounds

When revisions are requested, authors must submit:

• A revised version of the manuscript.
• A detailed response letter addressing each comment provided by reviewers and editors.

Estimated time for author revisions: 7–20 days.

Where necessary, the revised manuscript may be returned to the original reviewers or assigned to additional specialists for further evaluation.

8. Estimated Editorial Processing Times

Stage	Estimated Time
Initial Editorial Evaluation	7–15 days
Double-Blind Peer Review	20–45 days
Author Revisions	7–20 days
Editorial Production and Publication	15–25 days

Timeframes may vary depending on manuscript complexity, reviewer availability, and editorial workload.

9. Editorial Management and Traceability

The entire editorial workflow is managed through specialized electronic publishing platforms that provide a complete, secure, and verifiable record of interactions among authors, reviewers, and editors.

This system ensures:

• Editorial transparency.
• Traceability of editorial decisions.
• Information security.
• Preservation of editorial records.
• Efficient manuscript tracking throughout all stages of the publication process.

10. Publication of Accepted Articles

Accepted manuscripts proceed to the following stages:

• Copyediting.
• Technical editing.
• Layout and typesetting.
• Editorial production.

Upon completion of these stages, articles are published under the journal’s continuous publication model within the corresponding annual volume and are assigned a permanent Digital Object Identifier (DOI).

Subsequently, published content is incorporated into the indexing, digital preservation, and scientific dissemination systems used by the journal.

Final Statement

Sapiens Sciences maintains a strong commitment to scientific quality, editorial transparency, independent peer review, and the continuous improvement of its editorial processes, ensuring that all publication decisions are based exclusively on academic, methodological, and ethical criteria.