Double‑Blind Peer Review Policy

1. General Principle

The Interdisciplinary Journal of Sustainable Engineering and Social Development (RIISDS) exclusively uses a double‑blind peer review system. This method ensures that neither the authors know the reviewers' identity nor the reviewers know the authors' identity, guaranteeing impartiality, objectivity, and scientific rigor in every evaluation.

2. Scope

This policy applies to all manuscripts that pass the initial editorial evaluation stage and are sent for external arbitration, regardless of the type of contribution (original research article, systematic review, case study, technical note, or theoretical essay).

3. Review Process

1. Submission and preliminary check
   The editorial team verifies that the manuscript meets formal requirements (format, length, originality) and contains no information that could identify the authors.

2. Anonymization
   Authors must remove from the main article file any reference to their names, affiliations, acknowledgements, or metadata that could enable identification.

3. Reviewer assignment
   The Editor-in-Chief assigns at least two external specialized reviewers on the manuscript topic, from national or international institutions. Reviewers are selected based on academic expertise, lack of conflict of interest, and availability.

4. Invitation and acceptance
   A formal invitation is sent to the reviewer explaining the scope of the manuscript and the confidentiality commitment. The reviewer has 5 business days to accept or decline the invitation.

5. Review deadline
   Once the invitation is accepted, the reviewer has 15 business days to issue their evaluation. In justified cases, they may request a single 5‑business‑day extension.

6. Evaluation report
   The reviewer fills out the RIISDS evaluation form, which includes:

   • Section‑by‑section assessment (introduction, methodology, results, discussion, conclusions, references).

   • Confidential comments for the editor.

   • Comments for the authors (anonymous and constructive).

   • Final recommendation:

     • Accept as is

     • Accept with minor revisions

     • Major revision required (with a new review round)

     • Reject

7. Editorial decision
   The Editor-in-Chief evaluates the reports. In case of diverging opinions, a third evaluation may be requested, or the case may be referred to the Editorial Committee. The final decision is communicated to the corresponding author within a maximum of 10 business days after receiving all reports.

4. Confidentiality

Reviewers may not share, discuss, or use the manuscript content during or after the process. They may not contact the authors directly. The manuscript remains confidential until publication.

5. Conflict of Interest

Reviewers must declare any conflict of interest (recent collaboration, direct competition, institutional or personal relationship with the authors) and, in such a case, decline the invitation or be excluded by the editor.

Authors, for their part, must declare in a separate document any relationship that could influence the research.

6. Quality of Review

RIISDS expects reviewers to:

• Provide respectful, constructive, and well‑founded comments.

• Point out specific strengths and weaknesses.

• Detect potential ethical issues, plagiarism, or scientific integrity problems.

• Suggest relevant references when necessary.

7. Total Process Duration

The average time between manuscript submission and publication of the accepted version is 3 months. The first editorial contact occurs within a maximum of 1 month.

8. Appeals

If an author believes the editorial decision was unfair or not based on the evaluations, they may submit a written reasoned appeal to the Editor-in-Chief within 10 business days after notification. The International Editorial Committee will review the case, and its decision will be final.

9. Update

This policy becomes effective upon publication on the RIISDS website and will be periodically reviewed in accordance with international standards and COPE recommendations.