Peer-Review Process

AI and Tech in Behavioral and Social Sciences is committed to maintaining high standards of scientific quality, methodological rigor, research integrity, and publication ethics. All research manuscripts considered for publication undergo independent peer review before a final editorial decision is made.

Double-Blind Peer Review

The journal operates a double-blind peer-review process. The identities of the authors are concealed from the reviewers, and the identities of the reviewers are concealed from the authors throughout the review and editorial decision-making process.

Authors are therefore required to prepare their manuscripts in a manner that does not reveal their identity or institutional affiliation within the blinded manuscript file. Information identifying the authors is handled separately by the editorial office.

The purpose of double-blind review is to reduce potential bias related to authorship, institutional affiliation, geographical location, academic seniority, gender, nationality, or other characteristics unrelated to the scientific merit of the submission.

1. Initial Editorial Assessment

All submitted manuscripts first undergo an initial assessment by the editorial office and/or an appropriate academic editor. This screening evaluates whether the manuscript:

  • falls within the journal's Aims and Scope;
  • presents a sufficiently original and meaningful contribution;
  • meets basic scientific and methodological standards;
  • complies with the journal's submission and reporting requirements;
  • contains the necessary ethical approvals and declarations, where applicable;
  • appropriately discloses conflicts of interest, funding, and the use of artificial intelligence or automated tools, where relevant; and
  • complies with the journal's policies on research and publication integrity.

Manuscripts that clearly fall outside the journal's scope, lack sufficient scientific merit, contain major methodological deficiencies, or fail to meet essential ethical or editorial requirements may be declined at this stage without external peer review.

A decision made at initial screening is an editorial decision and does not imply that the manuscript has undergone external peer review.

2. Selection of Peer Reviewers

Manuscripts that pass the initial editorial assessment are normally sent to at least two independent reviewers with relevant expertise in the subject matter and methodology of the manuscript.

Reviewers are selected on the basis of their academic expertise, publication record, methodological competence, independence, and absence of relevant conflicts of interest.

The journal seeks to avoid selecting reviewers who have relationships or interests that could reasonably compromise—or be perceived to compromise—the independence of their assessment.

Authors may be permitted to suggest potential reviewers or identify individuals with whom a significant conflict of interest exists. Such suggestions are considered at the discretion of the handling editor and do not determine the final selection of reviewers.

3. Confidentiality

All manuscripts submitted for peer review are treated as confidential documents.

Reviewers must not disclose, distribute, reproduce, discuss, or use unpublished information contained in a manuscript for personal, professional, commercial, or research advantage.

Reviewers must not contact authors directly regarding a manuscript under review. All communication related to the review must take place through the journal's editorial system or editorial office.

Reviewers must also protect the confidentiality of any supplementary material, datasets, protocols, or other unpublished information provided as part of the submission.

4. Conflict of Interest

Before accepting a review invitation, reviewers are expected to disclose any actual, potential, or perceived competing interests that could affect their ability to provide an impartial assessment.

Potential conflicts may include, but are not limited to:

  • recent or ongoing collaboration with the authors;
  • close personal or professional relationships;
  • direct academic or commercial competition;
  • financial interests related to the subject of the manuscript;
  • involvement in the research under review; or
  • circumstances that could reasonably affect the reviewer's objectivity.

When a relevant competing interest exists, the reviewer should decline the invitation or consult the editorial office before proceeding.

5. Scope of Peer Review

Reviewers are asked to evaluate manuscripts on their scientific and scholarly merit. Depending on the article type, this may include assessment of:

  • originality and significance;
  • relevance to the journal's Aims and Scope;
  • theoretical or conceptual contribution;
  • appropriateness and transparency of the research design;
  • methodological rigor;
  • sampling and data-collection procedures;
  • validity of statistical or qualitative analyses;
  • reproducibility and transparency;
  • interpretation of findings;
  • consistency between results and conclusions;
  • adequacy and currency of the literature;
  • ethical conduct and reporting;
  • clarity and organization of the manuscript; and
  • limitations, implications, and contribution to the field.

Reviewers are expected to provide constructive, evidence-based, respectful, and sufficiently detailed comments that can assist both the authors and editors in evaluating and improving the manuscript.

Personal criticism or discriminatory comments are not acceptable.

6. Use of Artificial Intelligence by Reviewers

Peer reviewers must preserve the confidentiality of unpublished manuscripts.

Reviewers should not upload submitted manuscripts, figures, supplementary materials, or confidential editorial information into publicly accessible generative artificial intelligence systems or other external tools where confidentiality, data retention, or secondary use of the material cannot be assured.

Reviewers remain personally responsible for the accuracy, originality, integrity, and substance of their review reports. Artificial intelligence systems cannot act as peer reviewers and cannot replace the expert judgment and accountability of a human reviewer.

Any permitted use of automated tools must comply with the journal's AI policy, confidentiality requirements, and applicable data-protection standards.

7. Reviewer Recommendations

Following assessment, reviewers may recommend one of the following editorial outcomes:

  • Accept
  • Minor Revision
  • Major Revision
  • Reject

Reviewer recommendations are advisory. The final decision regarding publication is made by the Editor-in-Chief or an authorized handling editor on the basis of the reviewers' reports, the scientific quality of the manuscript, compliance with journal policies, and the editor's independent academic judgment.

Acceptance is never guaranteed solely on the basis of favorable reviewer recommendations.

8. Revised Manuscripts

When revision is requested, authors should submit:

  1. a revised version of the manuscript; and
  2. a detailed point-by-point response explaining how each reviewer and editorial comment has been addressed.

For comments that are not incorporated, authors should provide a clear scientific justification.

Major revisions may be returned to the original reviewers or sent to additional reviewers when further expert assessment is considered necessary. Minor revisions may be evaluated directly by the handling editor where appropriate.

Submitting a revised manuscript does not guarantee acceptance.

9. Additional Review and Conflicting Recommendations

When reviewer reports differ substantially, the editor may:

  • obtain an additional independent review;
  • request further clarification from one or more reviewers;
  • seek advice from a statistical, methodological, ethical, or subject-matter expert; or
  • make an editorial decision based on the available evidence and the editor's independent assessment.

The purpose of additional review is to support a fair and scientifically justified editorial decision rather than to obtain a predetermined outcome.

10. Editorial Independence

Editorial decisions are based on the scientific quality, originality, validity, relevance, and ethical integrity of the manuscript.

Decisions must not be influenced by an author's nationality, institutional affiliation, gender, ethnicity, religious or political beliefs, commercial interests, personal relationships, or ability to pay article processing charges.

Payment of an Article Processing Charge, where applicable, has no influence on peer review or editorial decisions.

11. Manuscripts Submitted by Editors or Editorial Board Members

Manuscripts submitted by the Editor-in-Chief, Associate Editors, Editorial Board members, or individuals closely associated with the journal are subject to the same scientific and ethical standards as all other submissions.

Such manuscripts are handled by an independent editor who has no relevant conflict of interest with the author(s). The submitting editor or board member is excluded from reviewer selection, access to confidential review information, and the editorial decision concerning their manuscript.

The journal does not permit editorial position or affiliation with the journal to influence publication decisions.

12. Special Issues and Guest-Edited Content

Articles submitted to special issues, thematic collections, or guest-edited sections are subject to the same peer-review standards and editorial requirements as articles submitted to regular issues.

Guest Editors must disclose relevant conflicts of interest and must not make decisions on manuscripts where their independence could reasonably be questioned.

The Editor-in-Chief or a designated independent editor retains oversight of the peer-review process and final responsibility for the integrity of editorial decisions.

13. Ethical and Research-Integrity Concerns During Peer Review

If a reviewer or editor identifies concerns involving plagiarism, duplicate or redundant publication, data fabrication or falsification, image manipulation, inappropriate authorship, citation manipulation, undisclosed conflicts of interest, unethical research practices, or other potential misconduct, the matter will be investigated according to the journal's publication ethics policies and recognized principles of research integrity.

Editorial decisions may be suspended while significant integrity concerns are investigated.

14. Appeals and Complaints

Authors who believe that an editorial decision resulted from a substantive factual, methodological, or procedural error may submit a reasoned appeal to the journal.

An appeal should clearly identify the specific issue being challenged and provide appropriate scientific justification or evidence. Disagreement with reviewer comments alone does not constitute sufficient grounds for an appeal.

Where appropriate, an appeal will be assessed by an editor who was not directly involved in the original decision.

Complaints concerning the conduct of editors, reviewers, or the peer-review process will be handled separately from the scientific evaluation of the manuscript.

15. Peer-Review Timeline

The journal seeks to conduct peer review as efficiently as possible while preserving the quality and independence of the evaluation.

The duration of peer review may vary depending on reviewer availability, the complexity and subject area of the manuscript, the number of review rounds required, and the need for specialist methodological or statistical assessment.

Authors will be informed of significant delays and may contact the editorial office regarding the status of their manuscript.

The journal does not guarantee acceptance or a predetermined editorial decision within a specified period.

16. Peer-Review Records

The journal maintains appropriate editorial records of manuscript handling, reviewer invitations, reviewer reports, author responses, editorial decisions, and relevant communications in accordance with its editorial and record-retention policies.

Reviewer identities remain confidential under the journal's double-blind peer-review policy and are not disclosed to authors or published with articles unless a different procedure has been explicitly approved and disclosed for a specific article type.

17. Final Editorial Decision

The Editor-in-Chief, or an appropriately delegated academic editor, has final responsibility for determining whether a manuscript is accepted for publication.

The final decision takes into consideration:

  • the independent peer-review reports;
  • the authors' responses and revisions;
  • methodological and ethical integrity;
  • the manuscript's scientific contribution;
  • its relevance to the journal's Aims and Scope; and
  • compliance with the journal's editorial and publication policies.

Peer review is an essential component of editorial assessment, but responsibility for the final publication decision rests with the journal's editorial leadership.