PEER REVIEW PROCESS

Preliminary Review
At an initial stage, the editorial team of SASCSIJ carries out a preliminary review of the manuscripts received, the result of which will be notified to the authors within a maximum period of 72 hours. During this phase, the Editor-in-Chief or an assigned editor evaluates whether the document aligns with the multidisciplinary approach, formal criteria, and editorial standards of the journal, considering its originality, relevance, and contribution to knowledge.

Texts may be rejected at this stage if structural issues, lack of thematic coherence, absence of relevant results, or plagiarized content are detected. When necessary, the editorial team may consult the Scientific Committee before issuing a preliminary decision.

Peer Review (Double-Blind)
Articles that pass the initial review proceed to the peer review stage. Within a maximum of 30 days from the receipt of the manuscript, authors will receive a notification on the progress of the process. Manuscripts will be sent to specialized reviewers —members of the review committee or external experts— with academic experience in the subject area.

Each reviewer will analyze the manuscript using a form that considers the following criteria:

  • Relevance and academic impact.

  • Conceptual clarity and argumentative coherence.

  • Theoretical soundness and logical structure.

  • Quality and currency of the sources consulted.

  • Methodological rigor and adequacy of the research design.

  • Level of analytical depth.

  • Originality and value of the conclusions.

The process has an estimated duration of up to an additional 30 days. If adjustments are required, authors will have between 8 and 15 days to make the requested corrections, according to the indications of the responsible editor.

Final Editorial Control
Once the revisions are approved, manuscripts enter a quality control phase, which includes spelling and grammar review, verification of compliance with the journal's guidelines, and final editing. However, acceptance at this stage does not guarantee immediate publication, as the final decision depends on editorial criteria such as the publishing schedule, thematic priority, and availability within the annual volume.

Additional Considerations of the Evaluation Process
Role of the Academic Editor
The Academic Editor is responsible for coordinating and supervising the evaluation process in its entirety. They may request additional reviews when deemed necessary to ensure the quality of the content. Once the reviewer is designated, they have a maximum of eight days to submit their report.

Confidentiality
The identity of the reviewers is protected throughout the process, unless they expressly wish to be identified.

Number of Reviewers
As a general rule, each manuscript is evaluated by two experts. However, if deemed appropriate, additional evaluations may be assigned to enrich the editorial judgment.

Process Tracking
Once authors submit their corrections, the editorial system will update the manuscript status to “Revisions Required Completed,” although this does not imply the conclusion of the process, as new rounds of evaluation may be necessary before a final decision is made.

Issuance of the Editorial Decision
The final decision on publication will be made by the Academic Editor, taking into account the reviewers' recommendations and their own technical judgment. This resolution will be communicated to the authors through the submission system and by email. During this period, the manuscript status will remain as “Decision in Progress” until the final outcome is communicated.