Peer Review Process
All manuscripts submitted to Sociability must adhere strictly to the journal’s Aims and Scope and Author Guidelines. Submissions are expected to present clear scientific contribution or originality consistent with the journal’s academic orientation.
Manuscripts must be written in proper and comprehensible language and must not have been published previously or be under consideration by another journal.
At the initial stage, the Chief Editor and Section Editors conduct a preliminary assessment to determine whether the manuscript is suitable to proceed to review. The journal implements an anonymous double-blind peer-review process, in which neither the authors nor the reviewers are aware of each other’s identities. Each manuscript is evaluated by two qualified reviewers appointed by the Chief Editor and Section Editors. Reviewers are generally expected to submit their recommendations within three weeks. If one reviewer recommends rejection, the Chief Editor may appoint a third reviewer or consult the Section Editors to determine the final outcome. Reviewers are required to provide constructive and academically sound feedback to enhance the quality of the manuscript. When necessary, an additional reviewer may be assigned to provide further critical evaluation.
Manuscripts that require revision will be returned to the authors and must be resubmitted through the Sociability OJS platform. The Chief Editor forwards the revised manuscript to the Section Editors to verify whether the revisions properly address the reviewers’ comments. Within approximately two weeks, Section Editors may recommend acceptance, further revision, or rejection. After the Chief Editor issues an acceptance letter, the manuscript proceeds to technical editing and layout preparation. Authors will subsequently receive formal notification regarding the issue in which their article will be published.
The revision procedure may involve four stages:
-
revision based on Section Editors’ recommendations at the prequalification stage (within 2 weeks);
-
revision responding to peer reviewers’ comments (within 2–4 weeks);
-
additional revision requested by Section Editors, if necessary (within 2–4 weeks);
-
final revision following editorial meeting recommendations, if applicable (within 1 week).
Manuscripts that exceed the specified revision deadlines will be withdrawn unless the authors formally request an extension before the deadline. The time required from submission to final acceptance varies depending on the duration of the review and revision process.
The final decision on acceptance is made solely by the Editor-in-Chief or the Regional (Handling) Editor, in consultation with the Editorial Board when required. Although reviewers’ evaluations are carefully considered, the ultimate decision is based on the Editor’s independent judgment.
The assignment of accepted manuscripts to specific publication issues is determined by the Editor-in-Chief, taking into account the order of acceptance, geographical distribution of authors, and thematic suitability of the issue.
