PEER REVIEW PROCESS

Genius-Pro Science (GPS) (ISSN: 3103-1366) applies a double-blind peer review system, whereby 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 submitted manuscripts.

The review process is conducted in accordance with the principles of scientific integrity, editorial best 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 assessment conducted by the Editor-in-Chief or a designated Academic Editor.

During this stage, the following aspects are verified:

• Consistency with the journal’s mission, editorial scope, and research areas.
• Compliance with the Author Guidelines.
• Basic scientific and methodological quality.
• Originality of 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 fail to meet the minimum standards of scientific quality, thematic relevance, ethical requirements, or editorial policies may be rejected without external peer review.

Estimated time: 7–15 days.

2. Assignment of External Reviewers

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

Reviewer selection considers:

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

The journal seeks to maintain an international and multidisciplinary reviewer network, 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 reviewers, and reviewers do not know the identity of authors.

Reviewers assess manuscripts based on, among others, the following criteria:

Scientific Quality

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

Methodological Quality

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

Editorial Quality

• Clarity and organization of the manuscript.
• Argumentative coherence.
• Quality of tables, figures, and supplementary materials.
• Currency and relevance of references.

Ethical Aspects

• Compliance with international ethical standards.
• Required journal declarations.
• Integrity of 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 evaluation are considered confidential documents.

Reviewers undertake to:

• Not disclose information related to the manuscript.
• Not use data, results, or ideas for personal or third-party benefit.
• Not share evaluated content without editorial authorization.
• Declare any potential conflict of interest before accepting the review.

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

5. Editorial Decisions

Based on reviewer reports and editorial assessment, possible decisions include:

Accepted

The manuscript is approved for publication without substantial modifications.

Accepted with Minor Revisions

The manuscript requires limited editorial adjustments or clarifications.

Major Revision 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 reviewer reports, the journal may request an evaluation from a third independent external reviewer.

The final editorial decision will be based on the overall body of technical and scientific evidence available.

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 made by reviewers and editors.

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 Timeline

These timelines may vary depending on manuscript complexity, reviewer availability, 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 ensures:

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

10. Publication of Accepted Articles

Accepted manuscripts proceed to the following stages:

• Copyediting.
• Technical editing.
• Typesetting.
• Editorial production.

Once these stages have been completed, articles are published in the corresponding semiannual issue and receive their permanent digital identifier (DOI).

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

Final Statement

Genius-Pro Science (GPS) is firmly committed 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.