Editorial Process and Communications at Sustainability and Beyond
Submission Process
Authors have the option to complete a short pre-submission form describing their intended submission [title; journal topic; approach or method (empirical research, theory, or practice-oriented); suggested article type]. The editorial committee will provide a response (considering alignment to the journal’s Aims and Scope) within 14 days on whether authors should submit and in which format. Detailed descriptions are available in the author's guidance. Submissions received will, therefore, be well aligned with the journal profile, quality criteria, and format requirements. This avoids ex-post format changes in the review process and a reduced number of rejections. In general, only one round of major revisions will be allowed, although this is a guideline and not a hard rule. If the editorial committee deems a submission to have merit in terms of its empirical originality, conceptual contributions, or policy importance, a second round of major revisions may be permitted.
Review Process and Communications
Manuscript Submission
Authors are invited to submit their manuscripts to Sustainability and Beyond through our online submission system. Submissions should adhere to the journal's guidelines and formatting requirements.
Initial Editorial Review
Upon submission, manuscripts undergo an initial review by the editorial team to assess adherence to submission guidelines, ethical standards, and relevance to the journal's scope. Submissions meeting these criteria proceed to peer review.
Peer Review
Selection of Reviewers: Sustainability and Beyond engages experts in the field for a thorough and unbiased review. Reviewers are selected based on their expertise and lack of conflicts of interest.
Evaluation Criteria: Reviewers assess manuscripts based on originality, methodology, clarity, and contribution to the field.
Editorial Decision
Recommendations: Reviewers provide recommendations (accept, minor/major revisions, reject). The handling editor makes a suggestion, and the Editor-in-Chief considers these when making a decision.
Author Notification: Authors receive detailed feedback and the editorial decision. If revisions are required, authors are guided on addressing reviewers' comments.
Revision and Resubmission
Revision Timeline: Authors are given a reasonable timeline for revisions. Resubmissions undergo a follow-up review to ensure satisfactory revisions.
Final Decision and Production
Acceptance: Once accepted, manuscripts proceed to the production phase, including copyediting and typesetting.
Publication: Articles are published online promptly or on a date chosen by the authors after final production, ensuring timely dissemination.
Communication Protocols
Timely Updates: Authors receive timely updates at each stage of the review process.
Query Resolution: Queries from authors or reviewers are addressed promptly by the editorial team.
Transparent Decisions: Editorial decisions are communicated transparently, with constructive feedback provided to authors.
Ethical Considerations
Sustainability and Beyond agrees with the COPE position statement on Authorship and AI tools, that AI tools (such as ChatGPT) cannot be listed as authors of a paper. These tools cannot take responsibility for the submitted work and hence do not meet the requirements for authorship such as the ability to declare competing interests or to agree to the license agreement. Authors, editors, and reviewers must all adhere to ethical standards.
- Authors must ensure and confirm that their submitted work is original, fully and properly cited, and aligned with the journal’s purpose.
- Authors must properly declare all relevant affiliations and funding support for their work.
- Editors and reviewers must give unbiased consideration to all submitted manuscripts, and review each on its merits without regard to race, gender, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the author(s).
- Editors and reviewers must not handle any submissions with which they are directly affiliated or connected.
- Editors and reviewers must avoid any actual, potential, or perceived conflict of interest. Should editors and reviewers consider that there may be an actual, potential, or perceived conflict of interest, this must be disclosed to the Sustainability and Beyond coordinating editor.
- Editors and reviewers must respect the intellectual independence of authors. If an editor or reviewer disagrees with the arguments made in a submission this is not a reason to reject that submission.
- Editors and reviewers must respect the confidentiality of any private or personal (non-public) information they may see during the peer review process.
PUBLIA – SLUB Open Publishing plans to become a COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) member. Sustainability & Beyond subscribes to the COPE's Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors as well as the Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers as best practice.
Confidentiality and Conflict of Interest
Confidentiality: Sustainability and Beyond maintains strict confidentiality throughout the review process.
Conflict of Interest: Editors and reviewers disclose any potential conflicts of interest to ensure unbiased evaluations. The review process at Sustainability and Beyond is designed to uphold rigorous standards, foster constructive feedback, and ensure the integrity of published research.
For more information on Peer Review see Author Guidelines and Submission.