Review Process and Referee Guidelines

Review Process

Submitted manuscripts are first screened by the editors. The editors decide whether the manuscript will be sent for review or not. The responsible editor notifies the author about the decision as soon as it has been made.

The editors may have several reasons for rejecting the manuscript at this stage, such as that the research presented has substantial and obvious flaws in its design; that the argumentation is incoherent; that the paper is poorly written or has disturbing language problems; that the authors have failed to follow the Submission guidelines; or that the topic of the paper is beyond the Aims and Scope of this journal.

Papers that make it through the editorial screening are sent for review to at least two referees. Both referees are selected on the basis of expertise in the field of the paper. One of them is selected also to assess the relevance of the paper for science and technology studies. Science & Technology Studies uses double-blind review, which means that referees do not know the identity of the authors and that, vice versa, authors are not informed about the identity of referees.

The referees choose one of the following recommendations for manuscripts:

a) publication without revision

b) publication after minor textual revisions

c) publication only after major revisions

d) revise and resubmit

e) rejection

The referees also give more detailed feedback about the paper. When the responsible editor has received the statements of the referees, they make a decision about the response to the manuscript. The editor takes the recommendations as a starting point for the decision. If the referee recommendations are contradictory, a third referee may be used. The author is informed about the decision as soon as it has been made. An approximate timeframe for referee comments is five weeks, but this may vary for several reasons.

In the case of acceptance after revisions, the author is asked to do revisions according to the recommendations of the referees and the instructions of the editor or assistant editor. The recommendations and instructions should be followed closely. The resubmission should be accompanied by a response letter that reviews the changes that have been carried out and explains any deviation from the recommendations and instructions. The editors review the revised version of the manuscript and make a decision about publication. If the revisions are not satisfactory, the paper may be rejected. In some cases, further revisions are needed. Sometimes the editors consult the referees anew.

When the manuscript has been accepted for publication, a PDF preprint will be sent to the author for a final check. Authors are responsible to check for flaws in the layout or the text. Science & Technology Studies cannot be held responsible for flaws that have not been pointed out by the author.

The author is also asked to approve an agreement for publication during the submission process. This should be read carefully before signing. After publication, the author will receive a PDF of their contribution.

 

Referee Guidelines

If you have been asked to serve as a referee for Science & Technology Studies and are interested in doing so, please read the following guidelines that have been prepared to help you in you work.

Science & Technology Studies places great emphasis on the quality of reviews. We are especially committed to the fair and impartial treatment of authors of manuscripts and work hard to develop and maintain a culture of academic rigour without sacrificing diplomacy. Thus, we ask you to respond in a way that is constructive for the author, both in cases of recommended acceptance and rejection. If you suggest revisions, please clearly point out what should be revised and, preferably, also how. In the case of rejection, clearly articulate the reasons for it, so as to help the author to write a better or more fitting piece next time.

To avoid undue delays in our response to authors, we appreciate receiving referee comments within five weeks. If you are interested in doing the review but cannot meet the deadline, or if you are unable to comment on the manuscript at all, please inform us as soon as possible. In case of the latter, we would greatly appreciate a suggestion for an alternative referee.

The review consists of two parts. First, there is a list of questions that are to be answered with a ’yes’, ’no’, or ’partially’. The second part consists of a freely formulated comment, in which you can explain your answers and provide further and more detailed feedback. Please remember that the more specific you are in your comments and suggestions for revisions, the better the quality of the review will be.

The following issues should be given particular attention:

• The relevance and novelty of the manuscript, its interest to STS scholarship, and its contribution to knowledge in the field, including previous research
• The clarity and relevance of the manuscript’s research question
• The quality and convincingness of arguments and conclusions, the soundness of methodology and reasoning, the quality of data, and the validity and limitations of analysis
• Conciseness and comprehensiveness: would the manuscript benefit from shortening or deletion of any sections; have any relevant points not been considered?
• Any other comments that you feel are relevant concerning the manuscript

Both the answers and the comments can be written directly into the electronic review form that you find as item 4 on the review page associated with the manuscript. In your conclusion (item 6 on the review page), please indicate whether you recommend publication without revision, publication after minor textual revisions, publication only after major revision, or rejection.

In addition to the electronic review form, you are welcome to submit a longer comment as a word processor document to the corresponding editor. To do so, please use the same form as the review to attach a file. Before sending documents, we kindly ask you to remove any author and organisation information from the document file.

Your anonymous comments will be forwarded to the author, and the review process will unfold as described in the above. If you have comments or recommendations for the editors only, please give these separately.

When carrying out your review, please make sure you follow the publication ethics guidelines of Science & Technology Studies, including the prohibition of using generative AI tools for referee work (see Submission guidelines). We thank you in advance for your kind cooperation.