Double-Anonymous Review · At Least Two Reviewers · Editorial Screening · Typical Timeline Included

Editorial Principle. The journal applies a structured and rigorous review procedure designed to ensure fairness, confidentiality, methodological scrutiny, and scholarly quality. Submissions are assessed on academic merit, relevance to the journal’s scope, and compliance with ethical and editorial standards.

Journal of Social Cognition and Communication follows a formal review process intended to support high standards of originality, conceptual clarity, methodological rigor, and scholarly relevance. The journal uses a double-anonymous peer review system in which the identities of authors and reviewers are concealed from one another throughout the evaluation process.

Manuscripts are normally reviewed by at least two independent external reviewers. Editorial decisions are based on reviewer reports, editorial judgment, ethical compliance, and the manuscript’s overall contribution to research in social cognition, communication, media, and contemporary society.

1. Submission and Preliminary Check

After submission through the journal’s online system, the manuscript undergoes a preliminary administrative check. At this stage, the editorial office reviews whether the submission includes the required files, whether the anonymous manuscript has been prepared appropriately, and whether basic metadata and author information are complete.

Manuscripts that are incomplete or improperly anonymized may be returned to the author for technical correction before editorial assessment begins.

2. Initial Editorial Screening

The handling editor, editorial office, or editor-in-chief evaluates whether the manuscript fits the aims and scope of the journal and whether it meets basic scholarly, ethical, and presentational standards.

This screening may include assessment of originality, relevance, academic writing quality, structural adequacy, citation practice, ethical disclosures, and overall suitability for external peer review.

Manuscripts may be declined at this stage if they are clearly outside the journal’s scope, substantially below required academic standards, or affected by serious ethical or technical concerns.

3. Reviewer Invitation and Assignment

If the manuscript passes the initial editorial screening, the editor identifies appropriate external reviewers with expertise relevant to the subject matter, methodology, and disciplinary orientation of the submission.

The journal normally seeks at least two independent reviews. Additional reviewers may be invited in interdisciplinary cases or when reviewer recommendations differ substantially.

4. External Peer Review

Reviewers are invited to assess the manuscript’s originality, theoretical significance, methodological soundness, analytical quality, structure, and contribution to the field. Reviewer reports are expected to be objective, constructive, and evidence-based.

Reviewers may also comment on research integrity issues, including possible plagiarism, citation irregularities, data concerns, unclear methodology, or inadequate ethical disclosure.

5. First Editorial Decision

After reviewer reports are received, the editor assesses the manuscript in light of the reports, the journal’s editorial standards, and the overall scholarly value of the submission.

Possible decisions include:

• accept without revision;
• accept with minor revisions;
• major revisions required;
• resubmit for further review;
• reject.

The decision letter should identify the substantive concerns to be addressed. Authors should respond point by point, cite the relevant changes in the revision and explain reasoned disagreement. The editor determines whether the revision needs further specialist assessment.

6. Revision by Authors

When revisions are requested, authors should revise the manuscript carefully and submit a detailed response explaining how reviewer and editor comments have been addressed.

Revised manuscripts may be evaluated directly by the editor or returned to one or more original reviewers, depending on the extent and significance of the revisions.

7. Secondary Review or Editorial Reassessment

For substantially revised manuscripts, the journal may conduct a second round of review or request additional editorial reassessment. This step is intended to determine whether previous concerns have been adequately resolved and whether the manuscript now satisfies the standards for publication.

Not every revised manuscript requires a full second review; the final route depends on editorial judgment and the nature of the revisions.

8. Final Editorial Decision

The final decision regarding publication is made by the editor-in-chief or an authorized editor after consideration of reviewer reports, author revisions, editorial standards, and any outstanding ethical or technical matters.

Acceptance indicates that the manuscript has successfully completed the journal’s review and editorial evaluation process, subject to final production procedures.

9. Copyediting, Proofreading, and Production

Accepted manuscripts proceed to copyediting, language polishing where required, formatting, metadata preparation, author proof review, and final publication scheduling.

As a biannual journal, accepted articles are scheduled for publication in one of the journal’s regular issues following completion of production requirements.

Overall Timing Guidance

Under normal circumstances, the journal aims to issue a first editorial decision within approximately 6–8 weeks of submission. The total time from submission to final acceptance may vary depending on reviewer availability, manuscript complexity, the number of revision rounds, and the responsiveness of authors.

Processing times depend on reviewer availability, manuscript complexity and the number of revision rounds. The stated timelines are estimates.