The journal’s review policy is based in the double-blind evaluation method, so that neither authors nor reviewers know the identity of the other party.

The maximum time for review an article is six months.

Reviewers are chosen from recognized professionals in the field addressed by the articles, coming from academia and the private sector, with both national and international profiles.

1. methaodos.social science journal publishes academic works of rigorous theoretical and empirical research in the fields of sociology and the Social Sciences in general.

2. The format and layout errors, the non compliance with the journal’s rules or the incorrect spelling and syntax may be cause for rejection of the manuscript without being evaluated.

3. The review will be by peer-reviewed by the «double-blind» evaluation method. All the works sent to methaodos.social science journal will be reviewed according to strict criteria of scientific quality.

4. Once received a text that complies with all the formal requirements, the author(s) will receive a confirmation of receipt and the evluation process will start.

5. In a first stage, the Editorial Board of methaodos.social science journal will revise the overall quality and the thematic adjustment of the work. By doing so, those manuscripts which quality is notoriously low or not implementing any contribution to the journal’s thematic areas may be directly rejected without undergoing an external review. For this first review, the Editorial Board may require the assessment by members of the Advisory Board, if deemed necessary.

6. The articles, research notes and book reviews which pass this first filter will be sent to two external reviewers, who will be specialist in the field or in line of research concerned. When the assessments are discrepant or for any other reason deemed necessary, the Editorial Board could send the text to a third reviewer.

7. In view of the reports of the reviewers, the Editorial Board may adopt one of the following decisions that will be communicated to the author(s):

• Accept without any changes. The reviewers recommend the publication of the version as originally submitted.
• Accept with minor revisions The reviewers suggest slight improvements.
• Accept after major revisions. The reviewers suggest in-depth changes.
• Resubmit for review. The reviewers suggest significant changes and, additionally, request a second round of review after the implementation of the requested modifications by the authors.
• Reject.
  

8. If a text is accepted for publication, the proofs should be reviewed by the author(s) within two weeks.

9. methaodos.social science journal will publish annually the list of all persons who have made anonymous evaluations, as well as the statistics about accepted, reviewed and rejected articles, and the average length of time between receipt of an article and communication of the final decision to its author.

10. methaodos.social science journal may make public,once they are verified, the following bad scientific practices: plagiarism, data falsification or fabrication, misapppropriation of authorship and double publication.

 

Open Access Policy

Policy on the use of artificial intelligence (AI)

methaodos.social science journal is committed to scientific integrity and transparency in the use of artificial intelligence (AI). To ensure these principles, specific guidelines on the proper use of AI tools have been established for authors, reviewers, and editors.

 

General principles

According to the guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Statement, AI tools cannot meet the criteria for authorship, as they cannot assume responsibility for scientific content. Furthermore, they cannot manage conflicts of interest, copyright, or make ethical decisions.

 

Use of AI by the authors

Authors must explicitly declare the use of any AI tools in scientific articles, research notes, and book reviews submitted to methaodos.social science journal. It is essential to indicate the software used, the tools applied, and the specific sections of the manuscript in which they were used. Furthermore, authors are responsible for the originality of the AI-generated or AI-assisted content and must ensure that its use does not entail bias and errors.

 

Using AI in peer review

If reviewers use AI as a complementary tool in the evaluation of scientific articles, research notes, and book reviews, they must expressly declare its use in the review reports. In any case, the reviewers' critical analysis and final evaluation are irreplaceable.

 

Use of AI by the editorial team

methaodos.social science journal editorial team may use AI in its anti-plagiarism systems or in manuscript editing and layout processes, but always under rigorous human supervision.

 

Ethics in the use of AI

methaodos.social science journal does not, under any circumstances, allow the use of AI to facilitate data manipulation, plagiarism, or intellectual property violations. Any misuse of AI, whether intentional or not, will be handled in accordance with COPE policies and will result in the exclusion of manuscripts and their authors.

 

Publishing Practices in Gender Equality