Editorial & Peer Review Process

Articles are assessed based on whether they fit the journal's scope, are of sufficient academic quality, are novel and able to appeal to the journal’s readership, and finally whether they contribute to Sachetas’s core objective. A double-blind peer review is used, which means both the author(s) and reviewers’ identities are concealed from each other.

A more detailed description of our editorial process can be found below.

INITIAL SCREENING: 

A newly submitted manuscript is screened by the Editor-in-Chief for its conformity to Sachetas’s scope and basic submission requirements.
PEER REVIEW. If the manuscript passes the initial screening stage, it is assigned to a handling editor, who then sends it to at least two reviewers with expertise in the relevant field. The article is anonymized and a double-blind peer review is carried out.
If the manuscript fails to pass the initial screening, it is rejected without further review.

FIRST DECISION:

A decision is only made when at least two review reports have been received. If the reports (and/or reviewers’ recommendations) differ significantly, the handling editor will request an additional reviewer to aid them in determining its suitability for publication.
At this stage, a manuscript can either be rejected, require minor or major revision, or be accepted as is. If significant changes to the language or content are required, the handling editor may recommend that the manuscript be resubmitted following a significant revision, after which it will go through a second peer review. If the manuscript is accepted, it will be returned to the submitting author for formatting. The final decision to accept the manuscript is made by the Editor-in-Chief based on the recommendation of the handling editor and following approval by the editorial board.

REVISION STAGE:

A manuscript that requires revision is returned to the submitting author, who will have up to two weeks to format and revise the manuscript, following which it will be reviewed by the handling editor. The handling editor will then determine if the required changes have been made, that they are adequate and appropriate, and if the author(s) sufficiently responded to the reviewers' comments and suggestions.
If the revisions are deemed to be inadequate, this stage will be repeated, giving the author(s) a second opportunity to address the reviewers’ concerns. Please note that if the handling editor finds that the article will not be sufficiently improved by a second revision (in other words, that a second revision will be a waste of the author(s) and/or journal’s time), they have the discretion of proceeding directly to the next stage and recommending that the manuscript be rejected.

FINAL DECISION:

At this stage, the revised manuscript is either accepted or rejected. This decision is based on whether the handling editor finds the manuscript to have been improved to a level worthy of publication. If the article is accepted, it is queued for typesetting, proofreading, and ultimately publication in an upcoming issue. If the author(s) are unable to make the required changes, or have done so to a degree below Sachetas’s standards, the manuscript is rejected.