SOSPENDIS follows a double-blind peer review policy. The paper is sent to multiple reviewers (experts in their respective fields) to review it according to the journal's guidelines and the features of a quality research paper. For papers requiring amendment, the same reviewer will be used to ensure that the quality of the revised paper is acceptable.

SOSPENDIS maintains peer review standards while increasing process efficiency.

All research articles published in SOSPENDIS underwent a full peer review, the key characteristics of which are listed below:

1. At least two qualified experts

 review all research articles.

2. The Editor-in-Chief makes all publication decisions of the journal based on the reviews provided
3. International Editorial Board members provide the Editor-in-Chief with insight, advice, and guidance in general and assist in decision-making about specific submissions.
4. Managing Editors and Editorial Assistants provide administrative support that enables the journal to maintain the integrity of peer review while providing fast turnaround and maximum efficiency for authors, reviewers, and editors.
5. Journals also benefit from referencing manuscripts from high-quality peer reviews conducted by established journals.

Peer reviews of referred papers:

SOSPENDIS will immediately decide whether to accept, reject or request a revision of the referenced paper based on editorial review and insight from the supporting journal. In addition, Editors will have the option to seek additional reviews when needed. Authors will be notified when the Editor decides further review is required.

Peer review of novel submissions:

At least two qualified experts will thoroughly review articles sent directly to SOSPENDIS in the field selected by the Chief Editor. The Editor-in-Chief or a designated member of the Editorial Board will then decide whether to accept, reject, or request revisions based on the reviews and comments received.

The Editor will decide whether each submission reports well-conducted research with conclusions supported by the data presented in the paper. Priority assessment will not factor into the decision, but all papers should make additional or new additions to the literature.