Peer Review Process

Journal of Social Cognition and Communication operates a rigorous and structured peer review system designed to ensure the academic quality, originality, methodological soundness, and scholarly relevance of all published articles. The journal is committed to maintaining a fair, confidential, and constructive review process that supports editorial integrity, scholarly exchange, and the development of high-quality international research.

All submissions are evaluated on the basis of their relevance to the journal’s aims and scope, conceptual contribution, engagement with relevant scholarship, analytical clarity, methodological rigor, and significance for academic dialogue in the fields of social cognition, communication, media, and contemporary society.

1. Initial Editorial Screening

After submission, each manuscript undergoes an initial editorial assessment conducted by the editorial office, handling editor, or editor-in-chief. This stage is intended to determine whether the submission fits the aims and scope of the journal and whether it meets the basic requirements for academic quality, originality, formatting, language clarity, and ethical compliance.

During this screening stage, the manuscript may also be checked for plagiarism, inappropriate duplication, incomplete submission materials, missing ethical information, or other issues affecting its suitability for peer review. Manuscripts that are clearly outside the journal’s scope or fail to meet minimum scholarly or ethical standards may be declined without external review.

2. Preparation for Anonymous Review

To support the double-anonymous review process, authors are required to prepare their manuscripts for anonymous evaluation. Author names, institutional affiliations, acknowledgements, funding statements that directly identify the authors, and other self-identifying information should be removed from the main manuscript file submitted for review.

Authors should also avoid self-identifying references within the manuscript where possible. Where reference to the authors’ previous work is necessary, it should be presented in a neutral scholarly manner. The editorial office may additionally remove identifying metadata or request revised files if anonymization is incomplete.

3. Assignment to External Reviewers

Manuscripts that successfully pass the initial editorial screening are assigned to qualified external reviewers with relevant expertise in the subject area. The journal normally seeks evaluations from at least two independent reviewers in order to ensure a balanced, informed, and academically grounded assessment.

Reviewers are selected on the basis of their disciplinary competence, research background, and ability to provide fair, timely, and constructive reports. Additional reviewers may be invited where a manuscript is substantially interdisciplinary, where reports diverge significantly, or where further expert evaluation is required.

4. Reviewer Evaluation

Reviewers are asked to evaluate manuscripts with regard to originality, theoretical significance, engagement with relevant literature, methodological appropriateness, analytical depth, clarity of argument, organization, and relevance to the journal’s academic scope. Reviewers are also encouraged to identify weaknesses, inconsistencies, ethical concerns, or areas where the manuscript may be improved.

Reviewer reports should be objective, respectful, evidence-based, and constructive. Personal criticism of authors is not acceptable. The purpose of peer review is not only to assist editorial decision-making but also to support scholarly improvement through reasoned academic feedback.

5. Editorial Decision

After reviewer reports are received, the handling editor or editor-in-chief considers the recommendations together with the journal’s editorial standards and the overall merits of the manuscript. Editorial decisions are based on scholarly quality and relevance rather than on the authors’ nationality, institutional affiliation, gender, personal background, or other non-academic factors.

Possible editorial decisions include:

• Accept without revision
• Accept with minor revisions
• Major revisions required
• Resubmission for further review
• Reject

Where reviewer opinions differ substantially, the editor may invite an additional reviewer or make a decision based on the strength, coherence, and evidentiary value of the available reports.

6. Revision Process

When revisions are requested, authors are expected to revise the manuscript carefully and submit a clear response explaining how each reviewer comment has been addressed. Revised manuscripts should demonstrate serious engagement with the review reports and should improve the clarity, coherence, scholarly contribution, and methodological strength of the work where applicable.

Depending on the extent and nature of the revisions, the revised manuscript may be assessed directly by the handling editor or returned to one or more of the original reviewers for further evaluation. Additional rounds of review may be conducted when necessary.

7. Final Decision and Production

The final decision on acceptance is made by the editor-in-chief or an authorized editor after considering reviewer reports, author revisions, and the overall academic standard of the manuscript. Acceptance for publication indicates that the manuscript has satisfied the journal’s editorial and peer review requirements, but it may still undergo copyediting, proofreading, formatting, metadata preparation, and final author confirmation before publication.

As a biannual journal, Journal of Social Cognition and Communication publishes two issues per year and aims to maintain a selective, transparent, and academically rigorous editorial process.

8. Confidentiality

All manuscripts submitted to the journal are treated as confidential documents. Editors, editorial staff, and reviewers must not disclose, distribute, discuss, or use unpublished materials obtained through the editorial process for personal, professional, or competitive advantage.

Information obtained through peer review may be used only for editorial evaluation and decision-making. Reviewer identities are kept confidential, and all participants in the review process are expected to preserve the integrity and confidentiality of the submission at every stage.

9. Conflicts of Interest in Review

Reviewers and editors should decline involvement in the evaluation of a manuscript if they have any conflict of interest that could affect their impartiality. Such conflicts may include recent collaboration with the author, institutional affiliation, personal relationship, academic competition, financial interest, or other circumstances that may compromise objective scholarly judgment.

Where a conflict is identified, the journal may reassign the manuscript, replace the reviewer, or take other appropriate editorial measures to preserve the fairness and integrity of the review process.

10. Review Timeline

The journal seeks to maintain an efficient and academically rigorous review process. Because review speed may be influenced by reviewer availability, manuscript complexity, the need for additional expert consultation, and the extent of revision required, processing times may vary from case to case.

The typical timeline is as follows:

• Initial editorial screening: approximately 1–2 weeks
• Anonymous preparation check and reviewer assignment: approximately 1 week
• External peer review: approximately 4–6 weeks
• First editorial decision: typically within 6–8 weeks after submission
• Minor revision by authors: usually within 2–3 weeks
• Major revision by authors: usually within 3–6 weeks
• Final decision after resubmission: typically within 2–3 weeks
• Accepted manuscripts proceed to copyediting and publication scheduling

11. Appeals

Authors who believe that a decision was based on a significant factual misunderstanding, procedural irregularity, or clear evaluative error may submit a reasoned appeal to the editorial office. Appeals should be professional, evidence-based, and focused on the substance of the editorial decision rather than simple disagreement with reviewer criticism.

The journal reserves the right to determine whether an appeal warrants reconsideration, additional editorial review, or closure of the case.