Peer Review Policy

Sapiens in Education (SIE), ISSN 3073-1534, applies this policy to all manuscripts subject to peer review. Its purpose is to ensure an independent, confidential, transparent scientific assessment focused on educational relevance, originality, methodological rigor, and ethical integrity.

Review model

The journal uses external double-anonymous peer review. Reviewers are not informed of the authors’ identities, and authors are not informed of the reviewers’ identities. The editorial team takes reasonable steps to remove identifying information from the review file; authors must also submit an anonymized version in accordance with the journal template.

Anonymity does not replace conflict-of-interest disclosure. Editors and reviewers must report any personal, professional, academic, institutional, or financial relationship that could affect, or appear to affect, impartiality.

Initial editorial screening

Before peer review, every submission is screened by the editor-in-chief or a designated editor. The screening examines:

alignment with SIE’s aims and scope and the presence of a clearly educational contribution;
originality, clarity of the problem, and contribution to educational knowledge;
consistency among the research question or objective, methods, results, discussion, and conclusions;
compliance with author guidelines, ethical requirements, and submission documentation;
minimum standards for language, tables, figures, data, and references; and
the similarity-check report, interpreted through editorial judgment rather than as an automatic threshold.

A manuscript may be rejected at this stage when it falls outside the educational scope, contains deficiencies that cannot reasonably be corrected, or fails to meet essential ethical requirements. It may also be returned for technical corrections before external review begins.

Reviewer selection and responsibilities

Manuscripts that pass screening are normally sent to two independent external reviewers with demonstrated expertise in the topic, method, or educational context of the study. When an interdisciplinary perspective is needed, one reviewer may come from a complementary field, provided that the reviewer can competently assess the educational contribution.

Selection considers subject and methodological expertise, academic experience, quality of previous reviews, institutional and geographic diversity, availability, and the absence of relevant conflicts of interest. Reviewers must decline when they lack the required expertise, cannot meet the deadline, or identify a conflict.

Reports must be critical, evidence-based, respectful, and useful. Reviewers assess the relevance of the question, novelty of the contribution, suitability of the design, quality and traceability of the evidence, consistency of the interpretation, limitations, ethics, and clarity of presentation. Reviewer recommendations inform but do not replace the editorial decision.

Confidentiality and use of manuscripts

Manuscripts, supplements, data, and editorial communications are confidential. Reviewers may not share, cite, reuse, or benefit from ideas or results before publication. They may not delegate the review or use external tools, including generative artificial intelligence tools, in a way that exposes confidential content. Any technical consultation with another person requires prior editorial authorization and identification of the contributor.

Stages and timelines

Stage	Estimated period	How the period applies
Receipt and registration	Immediate	OJS records the submission and sends the corresponding author a confirmation with the assigned reference number.
Initial editorial screening	7 to 15 calendar days	The editor checks scope, educational relevance, formal requirements, ethical integrity, and originality.
External review and first decision	20 to 45 calendar days	The period begins when reviewers accept the assignment and includes receipt of the reports and the first editorial decision. It may vary because of topic specialization or reviewer replacement.
Author revision	Maximum 15 calendar days	The period begins on the date OJS formally notifies the decision. The author must upload the revised version and a point-by-point response. The decision letter may set a different deadline according to the extent of the changes.
Editorial production	10 to 20 calendar days	After final acceptance, the manuscript undergoes copyediting, normalization, layout, proof review, and publication.

Clear rule for author revisions

When revisions are requested, the corresponding author has a maximum of 15 calendar days from the formal OJS notification to submit:

the anonymized manuscript with the requested changes incorporated;
a point-by-point response reproducing each comment and identifying where and how it was addressed; and
a clear academic justification whenever a recommendation is not accepted.

If the extent of the requested changes warrants a different period, the editorial decision will state the new deadline expressly. An author who needs an extension must request it before the deadline, explain the reason, and propose a delivery date. An extension is valid only when the editor approves it in writing through OJS.

If the author neither submits the revision nor requests an extension by the deadline, the editor may administratively close the file for lack of response. A closed manuscript may later be submitted as a new submission and will undergo the complete editorial process again.

Editorial decisions

After considering the reports and the authors’ response, the editor may issue one of the following decisions:

Accept: the manuscript may proceed to production, subject to non-substantive editorial corrections.
Minor revisions: limited corrections are required and may be verified by the editor.
Major revisions: substantial changes and further editorial or external assessment are required.
Reject and invite a new submission: extensive redevelopment is needed; any future version will be treated as a new submission.
Reject: the manuscript does not meet the journal’s scientific, ethical, or relevance criteria.

The final decision rests with the editor-in-chief or handling editor and must be supported by the reports, the authors’ response, and journal policies. When reports differ substantially, the editor may request clarification, commission a third external review, or issue a reasoned decision based on the full record.

Additional review rounds

When possible and appropriate, revised manuscripts are returned to the same reviewers. Each additional round focuses on whether outstanding issues were addressed and whether the changes introduced new concerns. Submission of a revised version does not guarantee acceptance.

Research integrity and editorial independence

Editorial team members who are authors, co-authors, or have a conflict of interest with a submission are excluded from its handling and from all decisions. Another independent editor manages the file. Author identity, affiliation, nationality, gender, theoretical orientation, or financial capacity are not acceptance criteria. The publishing entity is the Instituto Sapiens de Investigaciones Científicas Multidisciplinar (ISICM). Sapiens Edition S.A.S. serves as technical and administrative co-publisher and has no role in reviewer selection, scientific reports, or acceptance and rejection decisions.

Acceptance and publication

Acceptance is communicated only after scientific comments and ethical and documentary requirements have been satisfactorily resolved. During production, authors review proofs to identify editorial errors but may not make substantive changes without authorization. A DOI is assigned to the published article, and metadata are supplied to the registration, preservation, directory, and database services in which the journal has confirmed participation. This policy does not in itself imply or announce SIE’s inclusion in Scopus; any indexing status will be stated only after official confirmation.