Peer Review Policy

All manuscripts submitted to Sophia undergo an initial editorial screening that verifies alignment with the journal’s scope, compliance with the submission guidelines, originality and formal quality. Manuscripts that do not pass this screening are returned to the authors without external review.

Accepted manuscripts are assessed through double-blind peer review: authors do not know the identity of the reviewers, and reviewers do not know the identity of the authors. Each manuscript receives at least two reports from specialists external to the publishing institution. When the two reports disagree, a third report is requested to inform the final editorial decision.

Reviewers are selected on the basis of their expertise, recent output and absence of conflicts of interest with the authors. Manuscripts are not assigned to reviewers from the same institution as the authors, nor to anyone who has co-authored with them in the previous three years. Reviewers may recuse themselves and must do so whenever they identify a conflict.

The final decision rests with the editorial team and may be: accept, accept with minor revisions, request major revisions with further review, or reject. Reports are forwarded to the authors in full.

Authors may appeal a decision through a reasoned statement addressed to the Editor-in-Chief within 30 days. Appeals are resolved by a member of the Editorial Committee who did not take part in the original decision.

Manuscripts are confidential documents. They may not be shared, cited or used by reviewers or editors for their own purposes. Uploading manuscripts to generative artificial intelligence systems is not permitted during the review process, as it compromises confidentiality. Any use of such tools in preparing a report must be declared.