PEER REVIEW PROCESS

Sapiens Scientific Evolution applies 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 intended 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, editorial ethics, and best publishing practices promoted by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), as well as internationally recognized standards applicable to interdisciplinary scholarly journals dedicated to sustainability, socioecological systems, territorial development, governance, resilience, innovation, and sustainable development.

1. Initial Editorial Assessment (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:

• Alignment with the journal’s mission, aims, scope, and research areas.
• Compliance with the Author Guidelines.
• Basic scientific and methodological quality.
• Originality and academic relevance of the manuscript.
• Adequacy of manuscript structure and presentation.
• Compliance with the journal’s documentary and submission requirements.

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

Estimated timeframe: 7–15 days.

2. Assignment of External Reviewers

Manuscripts that successfully pass the initial editorial assessment are generally assigned to at least two independent external reviewers with demonstrated expertise in the subject matter of the submission.

Reviewer selection is based on:

• Subject-matter expertise.
• Recent scholarly publications.
• Research experience.
• Academic independence.
• Absence of conflicts of interest.

The journal seeks to maintain an international and interdisciplinary reviewer network, prioritizing experts in sustainability, socioecological systems, territorial development, governance, resilience, innovation, environmental management, public policy, and related fields.

Invited reviewers are normally 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 according to, among others, the following criteria:

Scientific Quality

• Originality of the research.
• Contribution to the advancement of knowledge.
• Scientific, territorial, environmental, or societal relevance.
• Relevance to the journal’s thematic areas.

Methodological Quality

• Appropriateness of the research design.
• Methodological consistency and rigor.
• Robustness of data analysis.
• Validity of results and conclusions.

Academic and Editorial Quality

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

Interdisciplinary Relevance

• Effective integration of disciplinary perspectives.
• Contribution to the understanding of socioecological systems, sustainability, territorial transformation, or sustainable development.
• Potential scientific, social, policy, or institutional impact.

All reviews must be conducted in accordance with the principles of objectivity, confidentiality, academic respect, and constructive criticism.

Estimated timeframe: 20–45 days.

4. Confidentiality and Conflicts of Interest

All manuscripts submitted for review are treated as confidential documents.

Reviewers are expected to:

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

Reviewers who identify a conflict of interest must decline participation in the review process.

5. Editorial Decisions

Based on reviewers’ reports and editorial assessment, one of the following decisions may be issued:

Accepted

The manuscript is approved for publication without substantial modifications.

Accepted with Minor Revisions

The manuscript requires limited editorial adjustments, clarifications, or minor corrections.

Major Revisions and Re-evaluation

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

Rejected

The manuscript does not meet the scientific, methodological, ethical, 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 exist between reviewer reports, the journal may request an evaluation from an additional 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 and recommendation made by reviewers and editors.

Estimated timeframe for author revisions: 7–20 days.

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

8. Estimated Editorial Timeline

These timeframes may vary depending on the complexity of the manuscript, 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 monitoring of manuscripts throughout all stages of the editorial process.

10. Publication of Accepted Articles

Accepted manuscripts proceed to the following production stages:

• Copyediting.
• Technical editing.
• Layout and typesetting.
• Final editorial production.

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

Published articles are subsequently incorporated into the journal’s indexing, digital preservation, dissemination, and scholarly visibility systems.

Final Statement

Sapiens Scientific Evolution reaffirms its commitment to scientific excellence, editorial transparency, independent peer review, and the continuous improvement of its editorial processes.

The journal guarantees that all publication decisions are based exclusively on academic, methodological, scientific, and ethical criteria, promoting the dissemination of rigorous interdisciplinary research that contributes to the understanding and sustainable transformation of territories, socioecological systems, governance processes, resilience, innovation, and sustainable development at local, regional, and global scales.