PEER REVIEW PROCESS

Manuscript Evaluation in Sapiens EduTech International Journal (SETIJ)

The Sapiens EduTech International Journal (SETIJ), published annually by Sapiens Ediciones, is a multidisciplinary scientific journal established in 2023. Its double-blind peer review process ensures the quality, originality, and academic impact of the submitted articles, guaranteeing an objective assessment based on scientific rigor and the relevance of each manuscript.

The evaluation is conducted by renowned experts with no conflicts of interest regarding the submitted work. These reviewers, selected for their academic trajectory and expertise, collaborate with the Editorial Board in validating the originality, methodological soundness, and alignment of the article with the journal’s editorial standards.

SETIJ has a growing international network of reviewers composed of researchers holding PhDs or experts with published work in high-impact databases such as Web of Science and Scopus.

The entire process is confidential: reviewers are expected to treat manuscripts with strict confidentiality and may not disclose or use any part of their content. If additional expert opinions are needed, the authors will be notified beforehand.

This rigorous evaluation system reflects SETIJ's commitment to academic excellence and the global dissemination of high-impact knowledge.

Initial Review
In the first stage, the editorial team of Sapiens EduTech International Journal (SETIJ) performs a preliminary evaluation of the received manuscripts. Within a maximum period of 72 hours, authors receive an email notification with a unique reference number. During this phase, the Editor-in-Chief or the assigned Editor examines the document to assess its alignment with the scope and editorial standards of the journal, reviewing its originality, academic relevance, and contribution to the advancement of scientific knowledge. Manuscripts may be rejected at this stage if they fall outside the scope of the journal, have structural deficiencies, lack clarity in presenting findings, or show signs of plagiarism. In case of rejection, authors will be informed within the established timeframe. If necessary, editors may consult the Scientific Committee.

Manuscripts that pass this preliminary review move forward to the peer review phase. Within a maximum of 30 days from the manuscript's reception, authors will be informed of the outcome of this stage. Approved manuscripts are then forwarded to specialized reviewers, who may be part of the journal’s reviewer panel or external experts in the subject area, usually researchers or postgraduate faculty from national or international institutions.

Double-Blind Peer Review
Manuscripts reaching this stage undergo a double-blind peer review process. Each reviewer completes a detailed evaluation form that considers the following aspects:

  • Relevance of the work to the academic field and its impact on scientific knowledge.

  • Clarity and coherence of writing.

  • Theoretical rigor and logical structure of the content.

  • Appropriate and updated use of bibliographic sources.

  • Methodological soundness and appropriateness of research design.

  • Depth and coherence of the analysis.

  • Originality and value of the conclusions.

The estimated time to complete this review is up to 30 days. Upon conclusion, authors receive an editorial decision. If revisions are requested, authors have between 8 and 15 days to implement the changes, as indicated by the editor.

After revisions are completed, manuscripts undergo an editorial quality control phase, including grammar and spelling checks, verification of compliance with journal standards, and final editing. However, the successful completion of this process does not imply immediate publication, as the final decision rests with the editors, who consider editorial policies, publication priorities, and the journal’s calendar.

Peer Review Process Details

Role of the Academic Editor
The Academic Editor is responsible for the overall supervision of the evaluation process, determining whether additional reviews are necessary based on the quality and rigor of the manuscript. Once assigned, reviewers have a maximum of eight days to submit their reports. In case of delays, authors must be informed promptly about the status of the review.

Reviewer Confidentiality
Reviewer anonymity must be maintained throughout the evaluation process, unless the reviewers choose to disclose their identity voluntarily.

Number of Assigned Reviewers
As a general rule, manuscripts are evaluated by two subject-matter experts. However, the Academic Editor may request additional evaluations to ensure a more thorough assessment.

Monitoring Manuscript Status
The editorial system must be updated to reflect the status “Revisions Required Completed” once authors have submitted the requested changes. Nevertheless, this status does not signify the end of the process, as further evaluations may be needed before issuing a final decision.

Final Editorial Decision
The Academic Editor must issue the final decision regarding the publication of the manuscript, based on the peer reviews and their own technical judgment. The decision must be communicated to the authors through the submission system and via email. During this time, the manuscript status will remain “Decision in Process” until the final notification is issued.