Review Process

Society & AI maintains rigorous scholarly standards through a structured peer review process. This page explains how we evaluate submissions and what authors can expect.

Double-Blind Peer Review

We employ double-blind peer review, meaning:

• Reviewers do not know the authors’ identities
• Authors do not know the reviewers’ identities

This approach minimizes bias and ensures manuscripts are evaluated solely on their scholarly merit.

Why Double-Blind?

• Reduces potential bias based on author reputation, institution, or demographics
• Encourages candid, constructive feedback
• Supports emerging scholars whose work stands on its own merits
• Aligns with best practices in academic publishing

Review Stages

Stage 1: Initial Screening

Duration: 1-2 weeks

Upon receipt, the editorial team conducts initial screening for:

• Alignment with Society & AI’s scope and mission
• Adherence to submission guidelines
• Proper anonymization
• Basic scholarly standards

Manuscripts that do not meet basic requirements may be returned without full review.

Stage 2: Peer Review

Duration: 4-6 weeks

Manuscripts passing initial screening are assigned to 2-3 peer reviewers with expertise in the relevant area. Reviewers evaluate:

Scholarly Rigor

• Is the research question clearly articulated?
• Is the methodology appropriate and well-executed?
• Are claims supported by evidence?

Originality

• Does the work make a novel contribution?
• How does it advance existing knowledge?
• Are connections to prior work appropriate?

Mission Alignment

• Does the work center human agency and societal well-being?
• Does it address educational equity considerations?
• Does it contribute to society-centered AI discourse?

Clarity & Presentation

• Is the writing clear and well-organized?
• Are arguments logically structured?
• Are limitations acknowledged?

Ethical Considerations

• Are ethical implications addressed?
• Is the research conducted responsibly?
• Are potential harms considered?

Stage 3: Editorial Decision

Duration: 1 week

Based on reviewer recommendations, the editorial team makes one of four decisions:

Decision	Meaning
Accept	Manuscript is accepted as submitted (rare)
Minor Revisions	Small changes required; no re-review needed
Major Revisions	Substantial changes required; will be re-reviewed
Reject	Manuscript does not meet publication standards

Stage 4: Revision (if applicable)

Duration: 2-4 weeks for authors

Authors receiving revision requests will:

1. Receive detailed feedback from reviewers
2. Have 4 weeks to submit revised manuscript
3. Provide a response letter addressing each concern
4. Undergo re-review (for major revisions)

Review Criteria by Content Type

Research Articles

Criterion	Weight
Methodological rigor	High
Theoretical contribution	High
Empirical grounding	High
Writing quality	Medium
Practical implications	Medium

Perspectives & Commentary

Criterion	Weight
Originality of argument	High
Engagement with literature	High
Clarity of position	High
Timeliness/relevance	Medium
Constructive contribution	Medium

Educational Resources

Criterion	Weight
Pedagogical soundness	High
Practical applicability	High
Evidence basis	Medium
Adaptability	Medium
Clarity of guidance	High

Reviewer Guidelines

Our reviewers are asked to:

• Provide constructive, actionable feedback
• Be respectful and professional in tone
• Focus on improving the work, not just evaluating it
• Declare any conflicts of interest
• Complete reviews within agreed timeframes
• Maintain confidentiality of manuscripts

Appeals Process

Authors who believe their manuscript was unfairly rejected may submit an appeal within 30 days of the decision. Appeals should:

1. Be submitted to [email protected]
2. Include the manuscript ID
3. Provide specific grounds for appeal
4. Address reviewer concerns point-by-point

Appeals are reviewed by a senior editor not involved in the original decision. The appeals decision is final.

Publication Timeline

Once accepted, manuscripts typically appear online within 2-4 weeks. The publication process includes:

1. Final copyediting
2. Author proofread review
3. Formatting for web publication
4. DOI assignment (planned)
5. Social media announcement
6. Indexing submission

Becoming a Reviewer

We welcome scholars interested in serving as peer reviewers. Reviewers should have:

• Terminal degree or equivalent experience
• Publication record in relevant area
• Commitment to constructive feedback
• Availability for 2-4 reviews annually

To express interest, contact [email protected].

Questions?

For questions about the review process, contact [email protected].