Peer review process

Genius-Pro Science and Society (e-ISSN: 3103-1358) applies a double-blind peer review system, through which the anonymity of authors and reviewers is preserved throughout all stages of the editorial process.

This model aims to ensure objectivity, impartiality, editorial independence, methodological quality, scientific rigor, and transparency in the evaluation of manuscripts submitted for consideration.

The review process is conducted in accordance with the principles of scientific integrity, good editorial practices, and publication ethics promoted by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), as well as international standards applicable to multidisciplinary scientific journals.

1. Initial Editorial Evaluation (Desk Review)

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

During this stage, the following aspects are verified:

• Consistency of the manuscript with the journal’s mission, editorial scope, and research areas.
• Compliance with the Author Guidelines.
• Basic scientific and methodological quality.
• Originality of the content through similarity-detection tools.
• Compliance with applicable ethical and regulatory requirements.
• Declaration of conflicts of interest.
• Funding statement.
• Authorship contribution statement.
• Data availability statement, when applicable.

Manuscripts that do not meet the minimum standards of scientific quality, thematic relevance, ethical requirements, or editorial policies may be rejected without being sent for external review.

Estimated time: 7–15 days.

2. Assignment of External Reviewers

Manuscripts that successfully pass the initial editorial evaluation are generally sent to at least two independent external reviewers with demonstrated expertise in the subject area.

Reviewers are selected based on:

• Subject-matter expertise.
• Recent scientific publications.
• Research experience.
• Academic independence.
• Absence of conflicts of interest.

The journal seeks to maintain an international and multidisciplinary network of reviewers, prioritizing specialists with experience in scientific research and publications in peer-reviewed and indexed journals.

Reviewers have up to seven (7) days to accept or decline the review invitation.

3. Double-Blind Peer Review

During the review process, authors do not know the identity of the reviewers, and reviewers do not know the identity of the authors.

Reviewers evaluate manuscripts according to, among others, the following criteria:

Scientific Quality

• Originality of the research.
• Contribution to scientific knowledge.
• Academic and social relevance.

Methodological Quality

• Appropriateness of the research design.
• Methodological consistency.
• Validity and reliability of the results.
• Analytical rigor.

Editorial Quality

• Clarity and organization of the manuscript.
• Logical coherence and argumentation.
• Quality of tables, figures, and supplementary materials.
• Relevance and currency of the references cited.

Ethical Aspects

• Compliance with international ethical standards.
• Required journal declarations.
• Integrity of the presented data.

Reviews must be conducted under principles of objectivity, confidentiality, academic respect, and constructive criticism.

Estimated time: 20–45 days.

4. Confidentiality and Conflicts of Interest

All manuscripts submitted for review are treated as confidential documents.

Reviewers commit to:

• Not disclosing information related to the manuscript.
• Not using data, results, or ideas for personal or third-party benefit.
• Not sharing the reviewed content without editorial authorization.
• Declaring any potential conflict of interest before accepting the review assignment.

When a real or potential conflict of interest exists, the reviewer must refrain from participating in the evaluation process.

5. Editorial Decisions

Based on the reviewers’ reports and the corresponding editorial assessment, the possible decisions are:

Accepted

The manuscript is approved for publication without substantial modifications.

Accepted with Minor Revisions

The manuscript requires limited editorial adjustments or clarifications.

Major Revisions and Re-evaluation

The manuscript requires significant modifications before a new editorial decision can be made.

Rejected

The manuscript does not meet the scientific, methodological, or editorial standards required by the journal.

The final decision rests exclusively with the Editor-in-Chief or the Academic Editor responsible for the process.

6. Reviewer Disagreements

When substantial differences exist between reviewers’ recommendations, the journal may request an evaluation from a third independent external reviewer.

The final editorial decision will be made considering the entirety of the available scientific and technical evidence.

7. Revisions and Additional Review Rounds

When revisions are requested, authors must submit:

• A revised version of the manuscript.
• A detailed response letter addressing each comment raised by reviewers and editors individually.

Estimated time for author revisions: 7–20 days.

When necessary, the revised manuscript may be sent again to the same reviewers or to additional specialists.

8. Estimated Editorial Process Timeline

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

9. Editorial Management and Traceability

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

This system guarantees:

• Editorial transparency.
• Traceability of decisions.
• Information security.
• Preservation of editorial records.
• Efficient monitoring of manuscripts throughout all stages of the editorial process.

10. Publication of Accepted Articles

Accepted manuscripts proceed through the following stages:

• Copyediting.
• Technical editing.
• Typesetting and layout design.
• Editorial production.

Once this process is completed, articles are published under the continuous publication model within the corresponding annual volume and receive their permanent Digital Object Identifier (DOI).

Subsequently, the published content is incorporated into the indexing, digital preservation, and scientific dissemination systems used by the journal.

Final Statement

Genius-Pro Science and Society maintains a strong commitment to scientific quality, editorial transparency, independence in peer review, and the continuous improvement of its editorial processes, ensuring that all publication decisions are based exclusively on academic, methodological, and ethical criteria. The journal operates through its official platform: Genius-Pro Science and Society Journal Platform.