Peer review process

In order to guarantee quality standards and also to ensure a fair curricular validation for the authors of the papers presented in SOCIETY & TECHNOLOGY, these will be submitted to a process of specialized and anonymous arbitration before publication, known as double-blind peer review.

The Editorial Committee will be in charge of the selection of the texts to be reviewed. It may reject those papers that do not meet the minimum requirements for publication or suggest improvements to the authors for a second submission of their proposal.

The opinion of the texts is made by the double-blind method under terms of confidentiality guaranteed internally by the Open Journal Systems infrastructure and the anonymity practices of the actors involved in the process. The reviewers or reviewers must be specialists in the research area of the work to be reviewed and are proposed by the Editorial Committee. In 95% of the cases, the reviewers are external to the Jubones Institute. The time allotted to each reviewer is four weeks.

The reviewers are previously registered in the platform as reviewers. Once they have accepted the review of a paper, they can access it and the online report format according to the type of paper.

In any case, the Editorial Committee is solely responsible for the final acceptance or rejection of the proposed articles. The review process and its particularities are detailed below. Additionally, this information is complemented with the existing information in the Ethics section of the publication. For any missing or incomplete information, the reader should know that the journal takes as a reference the COPE guidelines for peer review. 

 

Arbitration process and allotted times

Review system.

Society & Technology carries out a rigorous peer review process using the "double blind" peer review.

Review deadlines.

Initial notification. When the authors submit an original for review, they will receive an email to their contact address within a maximum period of 72 hours.

I move on to the review process. Society & Technology must notify the authors of the inclusion of their works under review within 30 days, or, on the contrary, their return.

Review of the original. The commitment of Society & Technology is to communicate to the authors the result of the evaluation of their articles within a maximum period of 3 months. Ensuring that said term is shorter whenever possible depending on the number of originals under review at that time.

General review criteria.

For the article to go through the review process, it is initially evaluated by the journal's editorial team:

  • Suitability to the theme and scope of the magazine.
  • Interest and timeliness of the proposal.
  • Complete and rigorous adaptation to the publication standards of the journal in all its extremes

For the article to be accepted for publication, regardless of the specific observations made by the reviewers on the originals received, the articles must comply with the following general considerations. When the originals do not meet these requirements, the following will be rejected:

  • Offer a valuable and significant result to the knowledge of the area, and specifically to the contributions in the field of Social Sciences. In this sense, submissions that constitute simple theoretical reviews or framework articles on the state of the issue that do not provide new knowledge through original theoretical approaches should be abstained. This type of article does not interest Society & Technology.
  • Fully respect the publication rules of the section to which they refer.
  • Fully adhere to the article structure required in the section to which it refers, both in the form and in the content and the nature required by said scientific presentation model.

Scrupulously comply with all the ethical requirements of scientific publication that the journal Society & Technology subscribes to.

Phases of the blind peer review process of an article

  1. Peer review helps the editor-in-chief and editorial board make editorial decisions, while editorial communications with the author can also help the author improve the article.
  2. Any selected arbitrator who feels unqualified to review the assigned manuscript or who is unable to provide a quick review should notify the editor and excuse themselves from the review process immediately.
  3. Manuscripts received for review should be treated as confidential documents. They should not be shown or discussed with other people except when authorized by the Editor-in-Chief.
  4. Reviews must be done objectively. There will be no personal criticism of the author. Reviewers should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.
  5. Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that has been previously reported elsewhere must be accompanied by the corresponding citation. A reviewer should also draw the Editor-in-Chief's attention to any substantial similarities or overlaps between the manuscript under consideration and any other published article of which he has personal knowledge.
  6. Inside information or ideas obtained through peer review should be kept confidential and should not be used for personal gain.
  7. Reviewers should not review manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest as a result of competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions related to the articles.

Peer review process

Once you have reviewed the article for evaluation, keep the following points in mind:

Confidentiality

He acts as a representative of Scientific Publications and all files sent to him are extremely confidential. As a reviewer, you cannot share any document and / or information without the proper authorization of the Editorial Team. If you want to add a colleague to the review process, you will need to speak with an editorial assistant first. Reviewers should also exercise extreme caution with research ideas and should never use the data and / or topics in their own personal manuscripts.

Timely review

A good and productive review process is time consuming. However, as the authors eagerly await the results of the evaluation, we ask our reviewers to send their comments within 2-3 weeks. If you think the article requires extensive reading, please inform the Editorial Office within the first week.

Ethics

As a reviewer, you should also consider whether the article has any ethical issues. If you believe that the article in parts or in its entirety has incorrectly copied some existing research, please let the editors know. You should also check if the article is based on accuracy rather than personal statements and goals.

Structure

Structure and content are the essential part of a manuscript. Reviewers should focus primarily on this part and the bulk of the review report should focus on the quality of the research.

Reviewers should carefully evaluate the following aspects of a manuscript:

Originality and scope

Is the research topic a current and innovative idea? Is there any discussion on this topic and is it related to the scope of the magazine? Has there been any previous research in this area? If so, is further investigation necessary? Would the magazine or any reader benefit from this article? Is there significant interest in this area of ​​research?

Title

Does the title adequately explain the purpose and aim of the article? Is it too long (readers tend to prefer clear and concise titles)?

Abstract

Does the abstract contain an appropriate abstract for the article? Is the language used in the abstract easy to read and understand? Are there suggestions for improvement?

Introduction

Do the authors provide adequate background on the subject and reason for this article? Does this section describe what the authors hoped to achieve? The introduction should provide a detailed outline of the article, including the proposed experiment, research method, and results.

Materials and methods

Is there detailed information about the experiment and research? Do the authors approach the subject with the appropriate method? Do they provide sufficient reasoning for your approach? Are the data and the sample design clearly described? Can readers use the information provided to replicate the research? Are all measures, equipment and materials adequately described?

Results

  • Are the results presented clearly?
  • Do the authors provide accurate research results?
  • Is there sufficient evidence for each outcome?

Conclution

Are there any flaws in the research results and methodology? Does the research provide sufficient data for the authors to reach their conclusions? Have the authors highlighted its future implications and the use of their research? Is there room for further improvement? Did the authors outline the purpose of their conclusions?

Tables and Figures

Are all the tables and figures used in the manuscript original and of high quality? Do they complement the investigation? Are they mentioned correctly in the text?

Grammar

  • Is the English used in the manuscript easy to understand and is it used correctly?
  • Should authors use an English language service to allow readers an easier understanding of their research?
  • Highlight any minor grammar or punctuation problems that the authors need to solve.

Formatting

The format of the article is an important part of the evaluation process, but reviewers should not focus their decision on this. If a manuscript has been accepted, the Society & Technology team reformats it according to our template. Just keep the following points in mind:

Does the article follow the journal format available online in the Instructions for Authors?

Do all paragraphs, tables, and figures have proper titles?

Final recommendation

Once you have thoroughly evaluated the manuscript, you can submit your review report to the editorial team.

Review decision

When issuing a review decision, you must select any of the following three options:

  • Accept in current state: The manuscript is eligible for publication in its current state and should be considered for publication immediately. You must provide adequate reasoning for your decision.
  • Accept with revisions: The manuscript provides sound reasoning, focuses on an important topic, and should be considered for publication. There are some issues that the authors need to address. The manuscript must be reviewed to meet the journal's requirements.
  • Reject: The manuscript is unsuitable for publication and should not be considered for publication in its current state. You must provide an adequate reason for your decision to allow the authors to improve their research.

Review format

Once you have decided your final decision on the article, prepare your comments according to the Journal Evaluation Report.

  • Impressions and Comments: This section should describe your views on the manuscript, which may include answers to the questions mentioned above. You can provide a reasoning for your decision.
  • Suggestions: The suggestions section is the key part of the evaluation form. You should clearly describe any suggestions you have for authors to prepare their manuscript for publication. Be sure to add your recommendations and reviews in this section only and not mix anywhere else. You can provide authors with a checklist to follow to modify their manuscript.

After checking

Once you have successfully reviewed the manuscript, you can submit your review through our Online Editorial System.

If you do not have access to the Editorial System, you can send it to the Editorial Assistant by email to update it in the system.

If you have requested reviews of the article, the authors will review your manuscript based on your comments and send you the revised version for a second round of evaluation. You can then check to see if the authors have adequately addressed all of your concerns. You can repeat this process as long as all problems have been fixed and the article is eligible for publication.