Peer Review Process
The journal accepts original manuscripts with sound theoretical, methodological and empirical grounding. The editors will not consider manuscripts that are currently under review for publication or have been published in another journal. Authors are welcome to email an abstract to the editors prior to formal submission for guidance on the appropriateness of their proposed article. Authors are obliged to participate in the peer review process.
All submitted manuscripts undergo an initial screening by the journal’s editors (including articles submitted for thematic issues) to check whether they meet the journal’s formatting and content guidelines. Then the articles will be reviewed anonymously by two or more reviewers. The reviewers are experts in the given field and are neither institutionally nor personally associated with the author.
Decisions on accepting, revising, or rejecting a manuscript are governed by the following rules:
- If both reviews are favourable (“Accept”), the final decision on acceptance is taken by the editors.
- Likewise, if both reviews are unfavourable (“Reject”), the final decision on rejection is taken by the editors.
- If both reviews suggest minor revisions (“Minor revisions required”), the author is invited to revise the manuscript, which is forwarded to the editors.
- If both reviews suggest major revisions (“Resubmit for review”), the author is invited to revise the text, which is then sent for a new assessment either to the reviewers who raised the original objections, or to a third reviewer.
- If the reviewers fail to reach consensus even after reviewing a revised version of the article, the editors will either contact a third reviewer (if such action was not taken earlier) or put the article forward to the editors for a final decision whether to accept or reject.
Publication Ethics & Malpractice Statement
Every effort is made to ensure the accuracy of information published in Socio.hu Social Science Review. Any infringements of professional ethical codes, such as cases of plagiarism, the fraudulent use of data, and bogus claims of authorship are taken seriously by the editors. They will take all appropriate measures to clarify the situation and to amend the article in question, including the prompt publication of an erratum or, in the most severe cases, the complete retraction of the affected work. Socio.hu Social Science Review follows the Core Practices of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), and uses COPE Flowcharts to resolve cases of suspected misconduct.
Submitted manuscripts should not have previously been published in any form and must not be under consideration for publication elsewhere at the time of submission. Authors who include research material in their manuscript that has previously been published elsewhere, should obtain permission from the copyright holder to reuse the relevant material.
Authors are required to obtain permission to reproduce any proprietary text, illustrations, tables, or other material, including data, audio, video, film stills and screenshots, and any other supplementary material that is submitted to Socio.hu Social Science Review. This rule applies to direct reproductions as well as ‘derivative reproduction’ of source material (the creation of a new figure or table substantially deriving from a copyrighted source). The reproduction and inclusion in a manuscript of short extracts of text, excluding poetry and song lyrics, may be possible without obtaining formal permission on the basis that any quotations are reproduced accurately and are fully attributed to the original author/s.
Upon request, data on which analyses are based must be made available to editors and reviewers for the purposes of manuscript evaluation. Authors are also encouraged to make relevant data available to readers without undue qualifications.
Copyright allows the author to protect original material and stops others from using their work without permission. The name of all third-party sources of funding must be provided, and the complete names and numbers of any supporting grants must be included in a relevant section of the article.
Opinions and views expressed in the journal are the opinions and views of contributing authors, and do not necessarily represent, nor are endorsed by, Socio.hu Social Science Review. The journal and its editors will not be liable for any losses, claims, legal proceedings, costs, damages, or any other liabilities howsoever generated, directly or indirectly, from the use of data and information published in the journal.
Standards of expected ethical behaviour
For all parties involved in the act of publishing – the author, the journal editors, the peer reviewer and the publisher – it is necessary to agree upon standards of expected ethical behaviour. The ethics statements for our journal are based on the COPE Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors.
The Editors and any editorial staff must not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher, as appropriate.
Disclosure and conflicts of interest
Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in an Editor’s own research without the explicit written consent of the author(s).
The handling Editor-in-Chief of the journal is responsible for deciding which of the submitted articles should be published. The Editor-in-Chief may be guided by the policies of the journal’s Editorial Board and constrained by such legal requirements as shall then be in force regarding libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism. The Editor-in-Chief may confer with other editors or reviewers in making this decision.
Peer reviewers’ responsibilities
Contribution to editorial decisions
Peer review assists the Editors in making editorial decisions and, through the editorial communication with the author, may also assist the author in improving the manuscript.
Any invited referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its timely review will be impossible should immediately notify the Editors so that alternative reviewers can be contacted.
All manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be shown to or discussed with others except if authorized by the Editor-in-Chief.
Standards of objectivity
Reviews should be conducted objectively.
Personal criticism of the author is inacceptable.
Referees should express their views clearly with appropriate supporting arguments.
Acknowledgement of sources
Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation. A reviewer should also call to the Editor’s attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published data of which they have personal knowledge.
Disclosure and conflict of interest
Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Reviewers should not consider evaluating manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the submission.
Authors reporting results of original research should present an accurate account of the work performed as well as an objective discussion of its significance. underlying data should be represented accurately in the manuscript. A paper should contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behaviour and are unacceptable.
Originality and Plagiarism
The authors should ensure that they have written entirely original works, and if the authors have used the work and/or words of others that this has been appropriately cited or quoted.
Multiple, redundant or concurrent publication
An author should not in general publish manuscripts describing essentially the same research in more than one journal or primary publication. Parallel submission of the same manuscript to more than one journal constitutes unethical publishing behaviour and is unacceptable.
Acknowledgement of sources
Proper acknowledgment of the work of others must always be given. Authors should also cite publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work.
Authorship of a manuscript
Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the reported study. All those who have made significant contributions should be listed as co-authors. where there are others who have participated in certain substantive aspects of the research project, they should be named in an Acknowledgement section. The corresponding author should ensure that all appropriate co-authors (according to the above definition) and no inappropriate co-authors are included in the author list of the manuscript, and that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the paper and have agreed to its submission for publication.
Disclosure and conflicts of interest
All authors should disclose in their manuscript any financial or other substantive conflict of interest that might be construed to influence the results or their interpretation in the manuscript. All sources of financial support for the project should be disclosed.
Fundamental errors in published works
When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in his/her own published work, it is the author’s obligation to promptly notify the journal’s Editor-in-Chief and cooperate with them to either retract the paper or to publish an appropriate erratum.