Editorial Process and Peer Review Policy

All submissions undergo editorial peer review. Senior Editors solicit contributions and make decisions regarding whether or not, and in which format, to publish submissions.

If a submission is accepted for review, either a double-blind or an open peer review process follows. The double-blind peer review process includes a minimum of two reviewers. If you are an author who requires to use a double-blind process, e.g., because you are a PhD student or because of rules of your institution, please indicate this during the submission process in the Letter to the Editors.

The open peer review process is conducted (a) in cases in which a blind review is not possible, e.g., with video materials, (b) if the submitting author opts for it, or (c) if the handling Senior Editor opts for it. The open peer review process includes soliciting responses and promoting continued dialogue. The editors might invite additional peers to critically evaluate and respond to the submitted article. On submission, the author is required to suggest peers who are willing to critically evaluate and respond to their submission. This process might also involve further rounds of responses.

One core aspect of the editorial process is the willingness of colleagues to provide feedback to each other through peer review. With submission to the journal the (prospective) authors therefore agree to an implicit quid-pro-quo, i.e., their willingness to also review for the journal. Authors who submit manuscripts for review are expected to reciprocate by reviewing if asked to do so.

With submission of their work to the journal submission website, the authors confirm that they respect the conditions formulated on this web site and that the Journal or its governing body holds no liability towards any damages caused by following the rules described herein or resulting from technical errors during the submission and peer review processes.

Good Research Practice. The members of the editorial board take reasonable steps to identify and prevent the publication of papers where research misconduct has occurred, including plagiarism, citation manipulation, data falsification/fabrication, among others. In the event that editors are made aware of any allegation of research misconduct relating to a published article we follow COPE's guidelines in dealing with allegations.

Ethical Code of Conduct. The journal enforces a zero tolerance policy towards abusive behavior. Any signs of rude, disrespectful and offensive behavior or statements, including derogatory remarks or anything which amounts to verbal or emotional abuse in person or in communications, sexually inappropriate, racist, discriminatory, aggressive or violent comments or behavior will lead to termination of the process. (Please also refer to the section on Publication Ethics).

For the settlement of disputes, within the peer review process, the Editor-in-Chief will have the final decision-making power. After conclusion of the peer review process, or if the Editor-in-Chief is involved into the dispute, the GWS Senior Advisory Board (SAB) of the Society for Managerial and Social Cybernetics (GWS e.V.) as governing body of the journal can be appealed to and will decide with simple majority vote. The members of the SAB must be members of GWS e.V. and are appointed initially by the Board of Directors of GWS e.V. The SAB subsequently appoint their members by simple majority vote. The SAB must comprise at least three members.

The Senior Editors of the journal form the Senior Editorial Board (SEB). The Senior Editorial Board sets the strategic and grand thematic directions of the journal in accordance with the Editorial Board. Its members elect the Editor-in-Chief (EiC), who can be a member of the SEB or a person from outside, with simple majority vote. The elected EiC must obtain recognition by the Board of Directors of GWS e.V. as governing body of the journal. The decision-making process of the Board of Directors of GWS e.V. is defined in the regulations of GWS e.V.

Publication Frequency

The journal publishes on a continual basis. Each new editorial cycle constitutes a new volume of the journal. The publication date of each volume is defined by the editorial board. The length of the editorial cycle will be defined by the editorial board and depend on organizational and thematic aspects as well as the number of articles submitted and under review. One to four volumes per year are expected.