Peer-review process

Double-blind peer review is a cornerstone of academic integrity and fairness in the review process. The purpose of double-blind peer review at Futurity of Social Sciences is to ensure an unbiased and equitable evaluation of research by concealing the identities of both authors and reviewers. This process eliminates potential biases and promotes fairness, allowing for objective feedback based solely on the quality of the manuscript.

 

The peer review process includes the following steps:

1) Initial per review process by the editor

2) Double Blind Review

3) Editor's Revision and Decision

 

1. Initial review by the editor 

Once a manuscript is submitted to our journal, a highly qualified journal editor reviews it to ensure it meets several basic requirements: alignment with the aims and scope, absence of plagiarism, scientific novelty, inclusion of all sections specified in the author guidelines and the journal's template, adherence to the journal’s formatting requirements, compliance with citation standards, and alignment with the journal's ethical policy. Unsuitable articles may be rejected without peer review at the editor’s discretion. Manuscripts that are not properly prepared will be returned to the authors for revision and resubmission. No judgment on the potential impact of the work will be made at this stage.

Based on initial screening one of the following decisions could be reached:

▪  Send the article for double review

▪  Send the article for revision

▪ Paper rejection. If the manuscript clearly lies outside the scope of the journal or the submission was not in conformity with established requirements;

 

2. Double blind review 

Once a manuscript passes the initial checks, it will be assigned to at least two independent experts for peer-review. Our reviewers are experts in their fields with a PhD or doctoral degree. Once reviewers have been selected and their preliminary agreement to review the manuscript has been obtained, they are sent an email containing the manuscript (without author information) and a review form that they are required to complete. Reviewers must not be affiliated with the same institution as the author and must not have any conflicts of interest.

The editors will accept reviewers' reports only in the official form that was provided to them before the review began. The reviewer can also write remarks in the form of comments in the article and send them together with the review file. 

During the peer review process, reviewers focus on the following issues:

The relevance of the article's content to the topic stated in the title, the timeliness and novelty of the scientific problem addressed in the article, the validity of the methodology and scientific results, the appropriateness of the cited scientific literature, and its proper formatting, among other aspects.

As result of this stage reviewer could make one of the following decisions:

▪ Accept with minor changes;

▪ Accept with major changes;

▪ Revise and resubmit;

▪ Reject the article;

Above recommendations  are reviewed by the editor prior to reaching final decision on article publishing. If the editor suspects any reviewer bias or non-conformity with ethical norms, he/she can appoint a different or additional reviewer. The same procedure could be used if reports from each reviewer are considerably diverse. If the reviewers' recommendation for the article is a rejection or revision, they must provide a written, reasoned explanation of the reasons for such a decision.

Authors are responsible for making any necessary changes based on the reviewer’s comments and then resubmitting the paper. Revision process might comprise multiple attempts until editor is satisfied with all edits and is able to reach his/her decision to accept article for publishing. 

All reviewer comments should be responded to in a point-by-point way. In case of the authors’ disagreement with a reviewer, they must provide a clear response.

 

3. Editor's decision and revision 

The editor-in-chief is responsible for the final decision regarding the acceptance or rejection of articles.

After completion of all procedures listed above, editorial office will issue letters stating one of the following decisions:

▪ Accept with minor changes;

▪ Accept with major changes;

▪ Revise and resubmit;

▪ Reject the article;

Articles requiring revisions are sent to authors along with the review text but without disclosing the identities of the reviewers. The revised manuscript is then resubmitted for further review, during which additional corrections may be requested.

 

If the article is accepted for publication, it goes to the next stage: Publication process

 

The most common reasons for rejecting an article:

▪ Lack of scientific significance or lack of originality;

▪ the manuscript is outside of aim and scope for the Publication;

▪ the submission does not conform to the formal requirements or ethical guideline of the Publication;

▪ the author didn’t make the necessary changes based on the reviewer’s comments and the Journal’s policy;

▪ the work contains certain emotional content that could mislead readers or is insulting;

▪ the work reveals confidential information without appropriate authorization.