Peer review process

Sage Sphere International Journal (SSIJ) / Esfera Sabia Revista Internacional applies an external double-blind peer review system, under which the identities of authors and reviewers remain confidential throughout the evaluation process.

Original Research Articles, Review Articles, Systematic Reviews, and Academic Essays that successfully pass the initial editorial assessment are submitted for evaluation by external specialists with expertise in the relevant subject area or methodology.

Given the multidisciplinary nature of the journal, reviewers are selected according to the specific characteristics of each manuscript and may come from the fields of Social and Legal Sciences, Engineering, Science and Technology, Natural Sciences, Arts and Humanities, Health Sciences, or interdisciplinary fields related to the content of the manuscript.

Principles of Peer Review

The purpose of peer review is to support editorial decision-making and strengthen the scientific quality of manuscripts. Reviewers provide evidence-based recommendations, while the final decision regarding acceptance or rejection remains the responsibility of the editorial team.

Reviewers must have relevant academic, scientific, or methodological expertise to assess the assigned manuscript and must act independently of the authors and the work under evaluation.

The journal seeks to obtain at least two reports from independent external reviewers before considering the final acceptance of a manuscript.

The evaluation process must be conducted with impartiality, confidentiality, respect, scientific rigor, and evidence-based judgment. Coercive citation requests, recommendations intended to promote personal or institutional interests, discriminatory comments, or any other practices that could compromise the integrity of the evaluation process will not be permitted.

Reviewers must observe internationally recognized ethical principles for peer review, including the guidelines established by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

Submission and Initial Technical Assessment

Once a manuscript is received through the journal's editorial platform, the responsible editorial team will conduct a technical and documentary assessment.

At this stage, the journal will verify that the metadata have been correctly entered, that the manuscript file is complete, that the anonymity required for double-blind peer review has been maintained, that the article type has been correctly identified, and that all required editorial declarations have been included.

The integrity of the submitted files, basic compliance with the Instructions for Authors, and the presence of all elements required to proceed with the evaluation will also be verified.

Initial Editorial Assessment

Manuscripts that successfully pass the technical assessment will be examined by the Editor or by a qualified member of the editorial team.

The initial assessment will consider the manuscript's alignment with the journal's multidisciplinary aims and scope, its scientific relevance, originality, clarity of the research question or objective, basic methodological adequacy, compliance with ethical principles, quality of presentation, and minimum conditions required for external evaluation.

The journal may reject a manuscript without sending it for peer review when it is clearly outside the journal's scope, presents substantial methodological deficiencies, fails to comply with fundamental ethical requirements, lacks sufficient originality, or does not meet the minimum scientific standards required for external evaluation.

The initial editorial assessment generally takes approximately 7 to 15 days, depending on the complexity of the manuscript and the required checks.

Selection and Invitation of Reviewers

When a manuscript successfully passes the initial editorial assessment, the Editor identifies external specialists with scientific or methodological expertise directly related to the content of the manuscript.

Reviewer selection will consider subject expertise, scientific background, independence from the authors, and the absence of conflicts of interest that could compromise the objectivity of the evaluation.

The journal will avoid assigning manuscripts to individuals who have personal, professional, academic, financial, family, supervisory, or recent collaborative relationships that could reasonably affect their impartiality.

The availability of specialists may vary depending on the disciplinary field, particularly for highly specialized or interdisciplinary research. Therefore, the time required to identify, contact, and confirm reviewers may form part of the overall period established for the external review process.

External Double-Blind Peer Review

Once the invitation has been accepted, reviewers will receive the anonymized manuscript and the journal's evaluation criteria.

Depending on the article type, the review should consider the originality and relevance of the contribution, clarity of the problem and objectives, appropriateness of the methodological design, quality of the analysis, consistency of the results, strength of the discussion, correspondence between results and conclusions, relevance of the references, compliance with ethical principles, and overall quality of the scientific presentation.

For Original Research Articles, particular attention will be given to the coherence among objectives, methodology, results, and conclusions.

For Review Articles, reviewers will assess the delimitation of the research problem, currency and relevance of the sources, transparency of the procedure used to select the literature, and quality of the critical synthesis.

For Systematic Reviews, particular attention will be given to the reproducibility of the search strategy, eligibility criteria, study selection, data extraction and synthesis, and compliance with PRISMA 2020 or other relevant methodological guidelines.

For Academic Essays, reviewers will assess the originality of the thesis, quality of argumentation, scientific foundation, logical coherence, critical capacity, and relevance of the conclusions.

The external peer review process, including receipt and analysis of the reviewers' reports, takes approximately 20 to 45 days. This period is an operational estimate and may vary depending on reviewer availability, the methodological complexity of the manuscript, the need for additional evaluations, or the specific characteristics of the submission.

Reviewers' Reports

Peer review reports are confidential and anonymous.

Reviewers must provide specific, constructive observations based on scientific criteria. Their recommendations should contribute to improving the quality, clarity, methodological rigor, and presentation of the manuscript.

Personal attacks, discriminatory expressions, unfounded accusations, coercive citation requests, or comments unrelated to the scientific content under evaluation will not be permitted.

The Editor may omit or request the reformulation of comments that violate principles of respect, academic integrity, or good peer review practices.

Peer review reports will not be published alongside articles as part of SSIJ's standard editorial model.

Editorial Decisions

After analyzing the manuscript and the reviewers' reports, the following decisions may be made:

Rejection during the initial editorial assessment. The manuscript does not fall within the journal's scope, presents significant scientific or methodological deficiencies, fails to comply with fundamental ethical requirements, or does not meet the conditions necessary to proceed to external review.

Major revisions. The manuscript requires substantial modifications, methodological clarifications, additional analyses, strengthening of the results or discussion, incorporation of additional evidence, or considerable revision of its structure and presentation.

Minor revisions. The manuscript represents a potentially publishable scientific contribution but requires specific modifications that do not substantially alter its design, results, or main conclusions.

Rejection after peer review. The reviewers' reports and editorial assessment determine that the evidence, methodology, originality, validity, presentation, ethical compliance, or scientific contribution do not justify publication.

Acceptance. The manuscript has successfully completed the peer review process, adequately addressed the required revisions, and meets the scientific, ethical, and editorial standards established by the journal.

Revisions by Authors

When revisions are requested, authors must submit a revised version of the manuscript accompanied by a detailed response to the comments received.

Each substantive comment from the reviewers or editorial team must be addressed individually, clearly indicating the modifications made or providing a scientific justification when a recommendation has not been incorporated.

For minor revisions, authors will normally have 10 to 15 days to submit the revised version.

For major revisions, the deadline may be extended up to 30 days, depending on the nature and complexity of the requested changes.

When justified circumstances arise, the corresponding author may request an extension before the deadline expires.

Second Review or Editorial Verification

Manuscripts requiring substantial modifications may be returned to the original reviewers or, when necessary, sent to new specialists.

Minor revisions may be verified directly by the Editor when they do not require a new specialized scientific assessment.

The need for a second round of peer review will depend on the nature of the comments received, the extent of the changes introduced, and the adequacy of the authors' responses.

When a new external evaluation is required, this may extend the overall duration of the editorial process.

Disagreement Between Reviewers

Conflicting recommendations from reviewers will not be resolved through automatic voting.

The Editor will assess the scientific basis of each report, the evidence presented, and the particular characteristics of the manuscript.

When substantial differences exist between reviewers, the Editor may request clarification, seek an additional evaluation from a third specialist, or obtain additional methodological advice.

Reviewers provide recommendations; the editorial team is responsible for comprehensively evaluating the scientific record of the manuscript and making the appropriate decision in accordance with the journal's policies.

Confidentiality

Submitted manuscripts, supplementary files, reviewer identities, evaluation reports, editorial communications, and any unpublished information must be treated as confidential.

Reviewers may not share manuscripts with third parties, contact authors directly, or use unpublished information obtained during the evaluation for personal, academic, professional, or commercial benefit.

Manuscripts or confidential materials must not be uploaded to public generative artificial intelligence services or external systems that may store, reuse, or incorporate the content into training or processing activities without authorization.

Editors and other members of the editorial team are subject to the same confidentiality obligations.

Supplementary Material and Research Data

Supplementary material submitted with the manuscript may be made available to reviewers when necessary for an adequate evaluation of the work.

Through the Editor, reviewers may request additional information, datasets, instruments, methodological documents, or other materials necessary to verify the scientific consistency of the research.

Such requests must always be managed through the editorial team. Direct contact between reviewers and authors will not be permitted during the evaluation process.

Reviewers Suggested by Authors

When permitted by the submission system, authors may suggest specialists who could be suitable to evaluate their manuscript or identify individuals with whom a documented conflict of interest exists.

Suggestions made by authors are advisory only.

The journal will independently verify the identity, affiliation, expertise, contact information, and potential conflicts of interest of any suggested reviewer. Suggesting a reviewer does not oblige the journal to use that individual in the evaluation process.

Reviewer Conflicts of Interest

Before accepting a review assignment, reviewers must disclose any relationship that could compromise or appear to compromise their impartiality.

Individuals who have recent and close scientific collaborations with the authors, direct academic supervisory relationships, close family or personal relationships, financial interests related to the work, or any other circumstances capable of objectively affecting their independence should not participate as reviewers.

If a potential conflict is identified after the review process has begun, the reviewer must immediately inform the Editor and withdraw from the evaluation when appropriate.

Editorial Conflicts of Interest

Editors must refrain from handling manuscripts when any personal, professional, financial, institutional, academic, family, collaborative, or competitive relationship could reasonably affect their impartiality.

When the responsible Editor has a conflict of interest, the manuscript will be formally assigned to another member of the editorial team who is not involved in the conflict.

If the individual with the conflict holds the journal's highest editorial responsibility, an independent responsible Editor will be appointed to manage the manuscript and make the corresponding decisions.

The individual affected by the conflict may not participate in reviewer selection, access confidential information concerning reviewer identities, influence the review process, or participate in the final decision on the manuscript.

Final Scientific Decision

The final decision to accept or reject a manuscript will be made considering the content of the work, peer review reports, authors' responses, revisions made, scientific integrity checks, thematic relevance, methodological validity, ethical compliance, and the editorial policies of Sage Sphere International Journal.

Decisions must be based exclusively on scientific and editorial criteria.

Institutional affiliation, nationality, academic recognition, author prestige, institutional relationships, financial interests, funding, sponsorship, or any other external pressure must not influence the scientific decision.

Appeals

Authors may submit an appeal when they believe that an editorial decision contains a substantive scientific error, procedural irregularity, undisclosed conflict of interest, or materially incorrect interpretation of their manuscript or responses.

Appeals should be submitted through the journal's official contact channel, preferably within 30 calendar days following notification of the decision.

The appeal must be properly substantiated and specifically address the reasons stated in the editorial decision.

Disagreement with a reviewer's scientific opinion, by itself, does not constitute sufficient grounds to automatically initiate a new round of evaluation.

The appeal will be examined by the responsible Editor or by an independent editorial representative when a conflict of interest exists.

Editorial Production

Once a manuscript has been definitively accepted, it will proceed to the editorial production stage.

During this stage, the manuscript may undergo language and style editing, verification of references and metadata, preparation of the DOI and other identifiers, XML JATS production where applicable, layout and typesetting, preparation of proofs, and preparation of the final version for publication.

The editing, proofreading, typesetting, and publication preparation stage takes approximately 10 to 20 days, depending on the characteristics of the article, technical requirements, and the authors' response time during proof review.

The timeframes established by the journal are indicative and are intended to organize the editorial workflow. They do not constitute guarantees of acceptance or definitive publication dates.