Peer Review Process

All manuscripts will be subjected to editorial assessment and peer evaluation in a double-blind fashion. Without external review, papers that do not fulfill the inclusion requirements or are otherwise unsuitable will be rejected. Manuscripts deemed suitable for inclusion in SOCIOMETRY are forwarded for formal evaluation. Typically, each article is reviewed by two specialists; however, they may be submitted to further examination if more specific guidance about statistics or methods is required. The editors will then approve or reject the articles based on the reviewer's remarks under the following conditions: (1) Accept and publish the article, with or without editorial revisions; (2) Invite the authors to revise their manuscript and address specific concerns; and (3) Reject the article outright, typically due to a lack of originality, insufficient conceptual advancements, or significant technical and/or interpretive problems. Any modifications to the original text will be explicitly indicated for review by the authors. The writers should carefully evaluate the sentence structure, completeness, and correctness of the updated manuscript's text, references, tables, and graphic materials. The Editor-in-Chief will make the ultimate determination about manuscript acceptance or rejection. The Editorial Board maintains the right to modify articles for style, structure, and clarity in all aspects. Manuscripts that include an excessive number of mistakes in any area, such as spelling or punctuation, will be returned to authors for modification prior to resubmission or will be rejected completely.

The SOCIOMETRY invites reviewer recommendations for changes to prospective submissions. However, if contradictory advice from reviewers is received, the editors will make the ultimate determination regarding the course of action. Before reaching a judgment, editors will consider each reviewer's report, relevant author comments, and any additional material that may be unavailable to either party. The major obligations of SOCIOMETRY are to our readers and the broader scientific community. To determine the most effective way to serve them, we must evaluate the validity and dependability of each article in comparison to the numerous others under consideration. We may seek additional assistance from reviewers, particularly if they disagree with one another if the authors think they have been misunderstood on key issues. As a result, reviewers should be prepared to give further guidance upon request. Editors are mindful that reviewers may be hesitant to become involved in lengthy disagreements and will limit interactions to the bare minimum essential to ensure that writers receive a fair hearing. When reviewers agree to evaluate a manuscript, the editors see this as a commitment to examine any future modifications. The editors will not resubmit a book to reviewers unless the writers have made a concerted effort to resolve the initial issues. The SOCIOMETRY takes the feedback and criticisms of reviewers seriously. Editors, in particular, are extremely hesitant to dismiss technical objections. When a single reviewer expresses opposition to publishing, editors may speak with the other reviewers to determine if they are adopting an excessively critical standard. Editors may occasionally enlist the assistance of extra reviewers to resolving disagreements. However, we try to avoid doing so unless there is a specific issue, such as a technical difficulty requiring specialized knowledge.