PROCESO DE REVISION POR PARES

Sapiens in Health Sciences (SHS) employs a double-blind peer review system, whereby the identities of both authors and reviewers remain anonymous throughout all stages of the editorial process. This model is designed to ensure objectivity, impartiality, editorial independence, methodological quality, and scientific rigor in the evaluation of submitted manuscripts.

The peer review process is conducted in accordance with the principles of scientific integrity, editorial transparency, and best publishing practices promoted by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), as well as internationally recognized standards applicable to scholarly publications in the health sciences.

Initial Editorial Assessment

All submitted manuscripts undergo a preliminary editorial evaluation (desk review) conducted by the Editor-in-Chief or a designated Academic Editor.

During this stage, the following aspects are assessed:

  • Alignment of the manuscript with the journal’s mission, scope, and thematic areas.
  • Compliance with the journal’s author guidelines and editorial requirements.
  • Overall scientific and methodological quality of the submission.
  • Originality of the content through similarity-detection tools.
  • Compliance with ethical requirements applicable to research involving human participants or health-related information.
  • Disclosure of conflicts of interest, funding sources, authorship contributions, and data availability statements, when applicable.

Manuscripts that fail to meet the minimum standards of quality, thematic relevance, or ethical compliance may be rejected at this stage without proceeding to external peer review.

The estimated timeframe for the initial editorial assessment is 7 to 15 days.

Double-Blind Peer Review

Manuscripts that successfully pass the initial editorial assessment are generally assigned to two independent external reviewers with demonstrated expertise in the relevant subject area.

Reviewers are selected based on their subject-matter expertise, research experience, and disciplinary complementarity. Typically, one reviewer possesses specialized expertise directly related to the manuscript’s primary topic, while the second reviewer represents a related or complementary field, thereby strengthening the methodological evaluation, scientific relevance, and practical applicability of the research findings.

For highly specialized or interdisciplinary studies, the journal may appoint additional reviewers or seek the support of specialized academic editors, while ensuring the independence and transparency of the editorial process.

Selected reviewers must not have any academic, institutional, professional, financial, or personal conflicts of interest with the authors, affiliated institutions, or the manuscript under evaluation.

Review Criteria

Reviewers are requested to assess manuscripts based on, but not limited to, the following criteria:

  • Originality and contribution to scientific knowledge.
  • Relevance to the health sciences and health outcomes research.
  • Methodological quality and scientific rigor.
  • Validity and consistency of results.
  • Relevance and quality of the discussion and conclusions.
  • Compliance with ethical and regulatory standards.
  • Clarity, coherence, and organization of the manuscript.
  • Currency and relevance of the cited literature.
  • Potential academic, clinical, or societal impact of the research.

Reviews must be conducted with objectivity, confidentiality, academic respect, and a constructive approach aimed at strengthening the scientific quality of the submitted work.

Confidentiality

All manuscripts submitted for peer review are treated as strictly confidential documents.

Reviewers are expected to:

  • Refrain from disclosing any information related to the manuscript.
  • Avoid using data, findings, or ideas contained in the manuscript for personal or third-party benefit.
  • Refrain from sharing the manuscript with others without prior authorization from the editorial team.

Any external consultation required to verify specific technical aspects must be communicated to and approved by the responsible editor in advance.

Editorial Decisions

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

  • Accept.
  • Accept with minor revisions.
  • Major revision and resubmission.
  • Reject.

In cases where substantial discrepancies exist between reviewers’ recommendations, the editor may request an additional evaluation from a third independent reviewer before making a final decision.

The final decision regarding the acceptance or rejection of a manuscript rests exclusively with the Editor-in-Chief or the Academic Editor responsible for the review process.

Revisions and Additional Review Rounds

When revisions are requested, authors must submit a revised version of the manuscript together with a detailed response letter addressing each reviewer and editor comment individually and systematically.

The standard deadline for submitting revisions is up to 15 days, unless otherwise specified by the editor based on the complexity of the requested modifications.

When necessary, revised manuscripts may undergo additional rounds of peer review by the original reviewers or by additional subject-matter experts.

Estimated Editorial Timeline

The average editorial processing times are as follows:

Stage Estimated Time
Initial Editorial Assessment 7–15 days
Double-Blind Peer Review 20–45 days
Author Revisions Up to 15 days
Final Editorial Verification 5–10 days
Production and Publication 15–25 days

These timelines may vary depending on the complexity of the manuscript, the availability of qualified reviewers, and the journal’s editorial workload.

Editorial Management and Traceability

The entire editorial workflow is managed through specialized electronic publishing platforms that maintain a complete and verifiable record of all interactions among authors, reviewers, and editors.

This system ensures:

  • Editorial transparency.
  • Decision traceability.
  • Information security.
  • Preservation of editorial records.
  • Efficient monitoring of manuscripts throughout all stages of the review process.

Publication of Accepted Articles

Accepted manuscripts proceed to copyediting, technical editing, typesetting, and final production.

Upon completion of these stages, articles are published under the journal’s continuous publication model within the corresponding annual volume, assigned a permanent Digital Object Identifier (DOI), and incorporated into the journal’s indexing, digital preservation, and scientific dissemination systems.

Sapiens in Health Sciences (SHS) is firmly committed to scientific quality, editorial transparency, and the continuous improvement of its peer review procedures, ensuring that all editorial decisions are based exclusively on academic, methodological, and ethical criteria.