1. Initial Submission and Editorial Screening. The peer review process begins with authors submitting their manuscripts via the Open Journal Systems (OJS) platform, following the journal’s guidelines on format, structure, and ethical compliance.

• Editorial Screening: The editorial team conducts a preliminary review to ensure that the manuscript aligns with the journal’s scope, relevance, and quality standards. Submissions are also screened for plagiarism using tools like iThenticate to guarantee originality. Manuscripts that fail to meet these criteria may be desk-rejected without external review.

2. Assignment of Reviewers. 

• Reviewer Selection: The editor assigns the manuscript to at least two independent reviewers with relevant expertise. Reviewers are chosen based on their subject knowledge, academic experience, and impartiality.
• Conflict of Interest: Reviewers must disclose any potential conflicts of interest and may decline to review the manuscript if a conflict exists.
• Automated Tracking: The OJS system tracks deadlines for reviewers and sends automated reminders to ensure timely feedback.

3. Double-Blind Peer Review. To ensure objectivity, we employ a double-blind review system, where both the authors and reviewers remain anonymous to each other.

• Anonymity Protection: The OJS system automatically removes identifying details from manuscripts before review. Authors are advised to avoid self-identifying information, such as self-citations or acknowledgments, to preserve reviewer anonymity.
• Review Criteria: Reviewers assess manuscripts based on the following criteria:
  • Originality – Does the research offer new insights, contributions, or novel methods?
  • Scientific Rigor – Are the methods valid, reproducible, and clearly presented?
  • Clarity – Is the manuscript well-organized, coherent, and free of grammatical errors?
• Relevance – Does the research align with the journal’s scope and contribute to the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) (where applicable)?
• Ethical Compliance – Does the manuscript adhere to ethical research guidelines (e.g., data protection, ethical treatment of human/animal subjects, conservation ethics)?

4. Reviewer Reports and Recommendations. Reviewers submit detailed feedback through the OJS platform. Their feedback must be clear, constructive, and aligned with COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) guidelines. If reviewers recommend rejection, they must justify their decision.

• Feedback Content: Constructive comments to help authors improve the manuscript’s clarity, accuracy, and impact.
• Reviewer Recommendations: Reviewers select one of the following recommendations:
  • Accept – The manuscript is suitable for publication with minor or no revisions.
  • Minor Revisions – The manuscript requires small changes before acceptance.
  • Major Revisions – Significant improvements are needed, and the manuscript will undergo a second review.
  • Reject – The manuscript does not meet the journal’s standards and is not suitable for publication.

5. Editorial Decision

• Decision-Making: The editor reviews the feedback and recommendations from reviewers to make a final decision on the manuscript. Possible outcomes include:
  • Acceptance – The manuscript is accepted as-is or with minor revisions.
  • Revisions Required – The authors are asked to revise and resubmit their manuscript.
  • Rejection – The manuscript is rejected due to lack of originality, poor quality, or ethical concerns.
• Author Notification: Authors are notified of the editorial decision along with detailed reviewer comments and revision instructions, if applicable.

6. Revisions and Resubmission

• Author Revisions: Authors address the reviewers' and editors' comments, make revisions, and resubmit the manuscript via the OJS platform.
• Second Review: For major revisions, the revised manuscript is sent back to the original reviewers for re-evaluation. Minor revisions are typically checked by the editor alone.
• Final Decision: After considering the reviewers' responses, the editor makes the final decision to accept, request further revisions, or reject the manuscript.

7. Copyediting and Proofreading

• Copyediting: Accepted manuscripts undergo copyediting to ensure clarity, coherence, and adherence to the journal’s style and formatting guidelines. Copyediting also ensures the removal of any remaining errors in grammar, punctuation, or formatting.
• Proofreading: Authors are given the opportunity to review the final proof of their manuscript before it is published. This step allows authors to identify typographical or formatting errors.

8. Publication

• Online Publication: The final version of the manuscript is published online in the journal’s next issue, making it accessible to the global academic community. Each published article is assigned a DOI (Digital Object Identifier) to facilitate tracking, citation, and discoverability.

9. Post-Publication Review

• Post-Publication Feedback: After publication, the academic community is encouraged to provide feedback, discuss the research, and engage in post-publication peer review.
• Corrections and Retractions: If errors are discovered post-publication, the editorial team may issue corrections, retractions, or notices of concern as part of the journal’s commitment to scholarly integrity. This process follows COPE guidelines.

Commitment to Quality and Integrity
At Societies & Sustainability (SAS), we prioritize the integrity and quality of the peer review process. By utilizing the Open Journal Systems (OJS) platform, we ensure a transparent, efficient, and impartial review system that benefits authors, reviewers, and readers. Our mission is to promote academic excellence and ethical publishing by upholding industry best practices and the guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).