Peer review process

The peer review process is grounded in the guidelines established by the Committee on Publication Ethics (2017) in its Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers, which constitute an international benchmark for academic integrity. These guidelines define the ethical principles and fundamental standards that all reviewers must observe throughout the peer review process, ensuring objectivity, transparency, confidentiality, and academic responsibility in the evaluation of manuscripts. Their application safeguards the scientific quality of publications, strengthens the credibility of the editorial process, and contributes to the rigor and reliability of scholarly knowledge production.

Sophia Research Review (SRR) ensures a rigorous, transparent editorial process in accordance with international standards of scientific quality. All published articles undergo thorough peer review and systematic editorial control, guaranteeing the validity, originality, and relevance of the academic work.

1. Submission and Initial Evaluation

  • Authors must submit their complete manuscripts, including personal information: full name, email address, ORCID iD, academic affiliation, and country.
  • The editorial team performs a preliminary assessment of the manuscript, reviewing formal aspects, thematic relevance, and originality. Plagiarism detection software is applied to ensure content integrity.
  • If the manuscript meets formal and content requirements, it proceeds to peer review; otherwise, it may be rejected or returned for revisions.

2. Open Peer Review

  • Each manuscript is sent to two subject-matter experts, selected according to the article’s thematic area. Authors and reviewers are aware of each other’s identities, promoting transparency and constructive dialogue.
  • Reviewers evaluate key criteria, including:
    1. Timeliness, relevance, and pertinence of the publication topic.
    2. Novelty and significance of the results.
    3. Quality of formal presentation and writing.
    4. Accuracy and reliability of citations and references.
    5. Overall evaluation, conclusions, and recommendations.
  • A standardized evaluation form with clear instructions is provided to ensure consistency and objectivity in the review process.

3. Exchange and Consensus

  • Reviewers provide feedback and suggestions to authors, who may respond, clarify, or revise their manuscript accordingly.
  • Reviewers may also exchange opinions among themselves to reach consensus regarding the article’s quality and relevance.

4. Editorial Decision

  • Based on the evaluations, the editorial team issues a decision:
    • Acceptance: the article is approved if both reviewers provide positive evaluations and no further changes are required.
    • Rejection: the article is rejected if one or both reviewers provide negative evaluations.
    • Revisions Required: the author must make the suggested adjustments to meet the required quality standards.
  • In special cases, a third reviewer may be consulted if there are significant discrepancies between the reviews. The editor holds the final decision regarding the article’s acceptance.

5. Post-Publication Dissemination and Feedback

  • Once published, each issue of the journal is made available to the scientific community.
  • Readers and authors may provide comments and observations, which are considered to improve future publications and enhance overall journal quality.

6. Ethics and Editorial Policies

Sophia Research Review (SRR) strictly adheres to ethical standards and good editorial practices, aligned with international norms:

  • Ethics statements: all studies involving human participants or vulnerable populations require informed consent, confidentiality, and anonymity.
  • Post-publication retractions and corrections: clear policies are applied to retract or correct articles in cases of errors, plagiarism, or scientific misconduct.
  • Responsibility of authors, reviewers, and editors: all parties comply with standards of scientific integrity, ensuring transparency, objectivity, and credibility throughout the editorial process.

7. Access and Review Model

  • The journal adopts an Open Access model, providing free and unrestricted access to all content, promoting knowledge democratization and enhancing the international visibility of authors.
  • Open Peer Review is applied, where authors know the identities of the reviewers and vice versa, strengthening transparency and objectivity in the editorial process.