Peer Review Process

  1. Initial Manuscript Evaluation:

    Manuscripts submitted to "Society" undergo a rigorous selection and assessment process by the Board of Editors to ensure strict adherence to writing guidelines, focus, scope, and exceptional academic quality.

    Authors are strongly encouraged to consult the detailed Author Guidelines for comprehensive instructions on manuscript preparation.

  2. Desk Review:

    During the desk review stage, manuscripts are meticulously examined to guarantee compliance with writing guidelines, focus, and scope, while maintaining a high standard of academic quality. Authors falling short of these criteria will be invited to revise their manuscripts based on provided guidelines. Manuscripts not meeting the established standards may be subject to direct rejection.

  3. Double-Blind Peer Review:

    Manuscripts successfully passing the desk review proceed to a rigorous double-blind peer-review process. Two expert reviewers, with identities confidential from both authors and each other, conduct a thorough evaluation within a specified timeframe of one to three months. Manuscripts not advancing past the desk review do not proceed to this stage.

  4. Reviewer’s Recommendations:

    The reviewers provide transparent recommendations:

    • Accepted: The manuscript is deemed suitable for publication.
    • Accepted with Minor Revisions: The manuscript is acceptable for publication pending minor revisions addressing reviewers' concerns.
    • Accepted with Major Revisions: Substantial inadequacies, such as data analysis, theory application, and paragraph rewriting, necessitate revision.
    • Rejected: The manuscript is not acceptable for publication, or fundamental issues raised in the reviews remain unaddressed.

    The reviewers' decisions are meticulously considered by the Board of Editors to determine the subsequent process for the manuscript.

  5. Revision Stage:

    Authors receive manuscripts with notations for either minor or major revisions, accompanied by a review summary form. Specific timeframes are provided for revisions, with three weeks for major revisions and one week for minor revisions. The revised manuscript must be accompanied by the completed review summary form.

  6. Final Decision:

    At this stage, the manuscript undergoes re-evaluation by the Board of Editors to ensure that authors have diligently addressed reviewers’ concerns. The final decision may include rejection if revisions are deemed insufficient.

  7. Proofreading:

    Manuscripts deemed acceptable undergo meticulous proofreading to ensure linguistic quality and adherence to publication standards.

  8. Publication Confirmation:

    The final layout of the manuscript is sent to the author for confirmation, allowing revisions for any typographical errors. Once confirmation from the author is given, the Editorial Secretary will process the manuscript for online publication on the journal's website and print publication.

  9. Communication Protocols:

    Clear communication protocols are established between authors, reviewers, and the editorial board, ensuring efficient and transparent correspondence throughout the review process.

  10. Continuous Improvement:

    The journal is committed to continuous improvement based on feedback and emerging best practices. Authors and reviewers are encouraged to contribute to this ongoing enhancement.

  11. Reviewer Recognition and Integration with ReviewerCredits:

    Recognizing the invaluable contributions of reviewers to the peer-review process, Society is pleased to announce its collaboration with ReviewerCredits. This platform certifies, measures, and rewards the activity of scientists as Peer Reviewers, further acknowledging their role in maintaining the scholarly quality of published content.