Editorial Policies

3.2 Review Steps

The review process involves the following steps:

• 1. Submission: Authors submit their manuscripts through the Online Submission System.
• 2. Initial Screening: The editorial team performs an initial review to check the manuscript's alignment with the journal's scope and overall quality.
• 3. Reviewer Assignment: Appropriate reviewers, selected based on their expertise, are invited to evaluate the manuscript.
• 4. Peer Review: The reviewers assess the manuscript’s originality, methodology, significance, and clarity. They provide detailed feedback and recommend either acceptance, revision, or rejection.
• 5. Editorial Decision: Based on reviewer feedback, the editors make a decision regarding the manuscript’s suitability for publication.
• 6. Revision and Final Decision: If revisions are required, authors are expected to address reviewer comments. The manuscript is then re-evaluated, and a final decision is made.

3.3 Review Standards

All manuscripts submitted to Social Flourishing are evaluated based on the following criteria:

• Originality: The manuscript should present new ideas, approaches, or findings that advance the field of social sciences.
• Methodological Soundness: The study must employ appropriate and rigorous methods, ensuring the reliability and validity of its conclusions.
• Significance: The research should address important issues and contribute meaningful insights to the field. The impact of the study is evaluated post-publication through its reception within the academic community and society at large, rather than by subjective judgment during the review process.
• Clarity and Presentation: The manuscript should be clearly written, well-structured, and easily understood. Results should be presented with adequate context, including a review of relevant literature and previous findings. Although we do not reject manuscripts solely due to poor English, this may increase the time costs for both authors and reviewers, as we strive to ensure that all published articles are clearly communicated in a manner suitable for our journal’s readership.

3.4.2 Key Elements of Your Review

In your review, please address the following aspects of the manuscript:

• Key Results: Provide an overview of the manuscript's key findings. This section should summarize the most significant or noteworthy results in a concise paragraph.
• Validity: Comment on the validity of the data interpretation and the robustness of the conclusions. If you find any major flaws that would prevent publication, please describe them in detail and suggest ways to address them.
• Significance: Assess the significance of the research. Does it contribute to the field of social sciences and related disciplines? If you believe the manuscript's significance is undermined by prior research, please reference relevant studies.
• Data and Methodology: Evaluate the methodology, including the data collection and analysis techniques. Reviewers should check the data and any supplementary materials. If any aspect of the methodology is beyond your expertise, please indicate this in your comments to the editor.
• Analytical Approach: Assess the strength of the analytical methods, including any statistical analyses. Ensure that the chosen approach is appropriate for the research question and that the methods are described clearly.
• Suggested Improvements: Provide suggestions for additional experiments or analyses that could enhance the manuscript. Ensure these suggestions are feasible within the scope of the current manuscript and would improve its scientific quality.
• Clarity and Context: Consider whether the manuscript is clearly written and if the authors have placed their findings in the proper context. Ensure that the manuscript provides sufficient background, including a review of relevant literature.
• References: Review whether the manuscript properly cites prior research. Are all relevant works referenced appropriately?

3.4.3 Providing Constructive Feedback

Our aim is for the peer review process to be constructive and helpful to the authors. Even in cases of rejection, thoughtful feedback can guide authors in improving their work for future submission elsewhere. While writing your report, we encourage you to:

• Be direct, but respectful: Offer clear, specific suggestions for improvements while maintaining a professional and respectful tone.
• Provide detailed feedback: Focus on the aspects of the manuscript that need improvement and suggest specific changes or additional experiments that would strengthen the research. General comments such as "this is not good" are not as helpful as suggesting concrete revisions.

4.4 Declaration of Competing Interests

In the interest of transparency and to allow readers to assess potential biases, all authors must disclose any competing financial and/or non-financial interests related to the research presented in their manuscripts. Competing interests are defined as any financial or personal relationships that could influence, or be perceived to influence, the objectivity and integrity of the research. This includes, but is not limited to, funding sources, employment, stock ownership, consultancies, patents, and personal relationships.

• Financial Competing Interests: These include research funding from organizations that may benefit financially from the publication, employment by such organizations, personal financial investments, consultation fees, and patents related to the manuscript’s content.
• Non-Financial Competing Interests: These encompass personal or professional relationships, memberships in advocacy groups, advisory roles in commercial entities, and other non-monetary affiliations that might influence the research.

If no competing interests exist, authors should explicitly state: "The authors declare no competing interests". This declaration should be included at the end of the manuscript and in the cover letter. Omitting this declaration may lead to the manuscript being returned for revision or rejected outright.

The corresponding author is responsible for ensuring that all co-authors have disclosed their competing interests. For double-anonymized peer reviews, a minimal statement indicating the presence or absence of competing interests must be provided during submission, with full disclosures made upon acceptance. Failure to disclose relevant competing interests may result in severe consequences, including retraction of the published work.

5.1.1 Research on Human Populations (Including Reporting Standards)

Studies involving human populations, particularly those categorized by race, ethnicity, gender identity, sexual orientation, religion, political beliefs, age, disability, socio-economic status, or other socially constructed groupings, must adhere to stringent reporting standards. Authors should:

• Explicitly describe their methods for categorizing human populations.
• Define categories in detail, as allowed by the study protocol.
• Justify the choices of definitions and categories, including compliance with any requirements set by funding agencies.
• Explain whether and how they controlled for confounding variables in their analyses.

All content must respect the dignity and rights of individuals and groups, avoiding stigmatization and ensuring that findings are contextualized to minimize potential misuse or harm. Authors are encouraged to use inclusive, respectful, and non-stigmatizing language, free from stereotypes or cultural biases, in accordance with the American Psychological Association’s guidelines on bias-free language.

5.3 Sex, Gender (Identity/Presentation), and Sexual Orientation

Research involving sex, gender identity, gender presentation, and sexual orientation should comply with the Sex and Gender Equity in Research (SAGER) guidelines. Authors are expected to:

• Indicate in the title and/or abstract when findings are specific to a particular sex or gender.
• Describe in the Reporting Summary whether sex and gender were considered in the study design and how participants’ sex and gender were determined.
• Report data disaggregated by sex and gender where applicable, ensuring that individual-level data sharing is consented to by participants.
• Perform and report sex- and gender-based analyses a priori, regardless of the outcome, and avoid post hoc analyses unless the study design permits meaningful conclusions.
• Justify the absence of sex- and gender-based analyses if they were not conducted.

Authors must carefully distinguish between “sex” (biological attributes) and “gender” (socially constructed roles and behaviors) to avoid confusion. Research should promote equality and avoid perpetuating harmful stereotypes or discriminatory practices. Any content that is sexist, misogynistic, or anti-LGBTQ+ will be deemed ethically objectionable and may result in the manuscript being revised, corrected, or retracted.

6.1 Author Standards

Authorship in Social Flourishing is a reflection of substantial intellectual contribution and accountability in the research process. The determination of authorship should be based on the following criteria to ensure that all listed authors have played a meaningful role in the creation and dissemination of the work:

• Substantial Contribution: An author must have significantly contributed to the conception or design of the work, the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data, and the drafting or critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content.
• Manuscript Preparation: Active involvement in writing the manuscript or revising it critically for important intellectual content is essential. This includes ensuring the accuracy and integrity of the work.
• Final Approval: All authors must approve the final version of the manuscript and agree to its submission for publication. This ensures that each author stands by the content and conclusions presented.
• Accountability: Authors are accountable for all aspects of the work, ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.

Individuals who have contributed to the research but do not meet all the above criteria should be acknowledged in the acknowledgments section rather than being listed as authors. This practice helps prevent the inclusion of "ghost authors" (those who contributed significantly but are not listed) and "guest authors" (those who are listed without substantial contribution).

The order of authorship should reflect the relative contributions of each author. Typically, the first author is the individual who has made the most significant contribution to the research and manuscript preparation. The last author often serves as the senior researcher or principal investigator who supervised the project. Other authors are listed in order of their contributions, though specific conventions may vary depending on the discipline and the nature of the collaboration. It is encouraged that authors discuss and agree upon the order of authorship prior to manuscript submission to ensure transparency and fairness.

Corresponding Author: The corresponding author plays a pivotal role in the submission process. This individual is responsible for managing communication between the journal and all co-authors, ensuring that all authors have reviewed and approved the manuscript, and addressing any queries or revisions requested by the editorial team. While it is permissible for an author to hold both the first and corresponding author positions, it is recommended to designate a distinct corresponding author to distribute responsibilities effectively and maintain clear lines of communication.

6.2 Contribution Statements

To uphold the principles of transparency and accountability, Social Flourishing requires authors to provide detailed contribution statements that delineate each author's specific role in the research and manuscript preparation. This practice fosters an environment of honesty and ensures that each contributor's efforts are appropriately recognized.

Contribution statements should be included in a dedicated section at the end of the manuscript, typically following the acknowledgments. Authors are encouraged to articulate their contributions using a standardized framework, such as the Contributor Roles Taxonomy (CRediT). The CRediT system classifies contributions into distinct roles, facilitating a clear and comprehensive acknowledgment of each author's input. The primary roles within the CRediT taxonomy include:

Example of a Contribution Statement:

Author Contributions
John Doe: Conceptualization, Methodology, Formal Analysis, Writing – Original Draft.
Jane Smith: Data Curation, Investigation, Visualization, Writing – Review & Editing.
Emily Zhang: Funding Acquisition, Project Administration, Supervision, Writing – Review & Editing.
    

7.1 Copyright Transfer and Licensing Options

At Social Flourishing, we are committed to promoting open access and ensuring that the dissemination of knowledge is both unrestricted and ethically sound. To achieve this, we offer authors a range of copyright and licensing options that align with the principles of Open Science while safeguarding intellectual property rights.

Upon acceptance of a manuscript, authors are required to transfer copyright to Social Flourishing. This transfer facilitates the journal’s ability to distribute and archive the work effectively. However, recognizing the diverse needs of our contributors, we provide flexible licensing options under the Creative Commons framework to ensure that research is accessible and reusable in accordance with authors' preferences.

• Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0): This license allows others to distribute, remix, adapt, and build upon the work, even commercially, as long as appropriate credit is given to the original authors and source, a link to the license is provided, and any changes made are indicated. CC BY 4.0 is the preferred license for Social Flourishing as it maximizes the dissemination and utility of the research.
• Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International (CC BY-NC 4.0): This license permits others to remix, adapt, and build upon the work non-commercially, and although their new works must also acknowledge the original authors and be non-commercial, they don’t have to license their derivative works on the same terms.
• Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-SA 4.0): This license allows others to remix, adapt, and build upon the work even for commercial purposes, as long as they credit the authors and license their new creations under identical terms.

Authors are encouraged to select the license that best suits their dissemination and reuse intentions. Detailed explanations of each license are available on the Creative Commons website.

7.3 Authors’ Rights and Responsibilities

While authors retain ownership of their intellectual property, the transfer of copyright to Social Flourishing ensures that the journal can effectively distribute and preserve the work. Authors are granted significant rights under the chosen Creative Commons license, including the ability to:

• Share their work freely with others.
• Reproduce and adapt their work for various purposes.
• Allow others to build upon their work, provided that appropriate credit is given.

It is the authors’ responsibility to ensure that their work does not infringe upon the intellectual property rights of others. This includes obtaining necessary permissions for any third-party materials incorporated into their manuscripts, such as figures, tables, or substantial excerpts of text. Authors must provide evidence of such permissions if requested by the editorial team.

7.4 Avoiding Legal Risks

To mitigate potential legal risks, Social Flourishing implements stringent checks to ensure compliance with copyright laws and licensing agreements. Authors are required to confirm that:

• Their work is original and does not infringe upon any existing copyrights.
• They have obtained all necessary permissions for the use of third-party materials.
• The manuscript does not contain defamatory, libelous, or otherwise unlawful content.

Failure to adhere to these requirements may result in the rejection of the manuscript or the retraction of published work. Additionally, authors are encouraged to familiarize themselves with copyright laws and the implications of different licensing options to make informed decisions about the dissemination of their research.

8.1 Processing Cycle

At Social Flourishing, we recognize the paramount importance of a swift and efficient publication process in fostering the timely dissemination of groundbreaking research. Our streamlined workflow is meticulously designed to balance speed with the rigorous standards of academic excellence that our journal upholds.

Standard Processing Timeline

• Submission to Initial Decision: Authors can expect to receive an initial decision within 14 working days of manuscript submission. This decision will determine whether the manuscript is suitable to proceed to the peer review stage.
• Reviewer Invitation: Following a positive initial decision, the editorial team will extend invitations to qualified reviewers within 3 working days. We strive to identify experts whose expertise aligns closely with the manuscript’s subject matter.
• Peer Review: The duration of the peer review process is contingent upon the responsiveness of the invited reviewers and the promptness of authors in addressing feedback. Typically, this phase spans 4 to 6 weeks.
• Final Decision to Publication: Upon acceptance, the interval from the final decision to publication is approximately 2 months. This period encompasses thorough copyediting, typesetting, and the preparation of the manuscript for online publication.

Our commitment to an expedited yet thorough review process ensures that high-quality research is made available to the academic community without undue delay. We understand that timely publication is essential for advancing knowledge and fostering collaboration across disciplines.

8.2 Fast Track

In recognition of the diverse and dynamic nature of scholarly research, Social Flourishing offers a Fast Track publication pathway. This option is available to all authors seeking accelerated processing of their manuscripts, thereby facilitating the rapid dissemination of critical findings.

Details regarding APC waivers and reductions can be found on our APC page.

9. Defining and Handling Academic Misconduct

9.1 Definition of Academic Misconduct

Academic misconduct encompasses a range of unethical behaviors that undermine the integrity and credibility of scholarly research. At Social Flourishing, we define academic misconduct as actions that violate the ethical standards of research and publication. The primary forms of academic misconduct include:

• Plagiarism: The appropriation of another's ideas, processes, results, or words without appropriate attribution, presenting them as one's own original work.
• Fabrication: The creation of false data, results, or citations with the intention of deceiving others.
• Falsification: The manipulation of research materials, equipment, or processes, or changing or omitting data or results, to misrepresent the research findings.
• Duplicate Publication: Publication of the same research findings in multiple journals without proper disclosure, thereby inflating the publication record unjustly.
• Authorship Issues: Including individuals as authors who did not contribute significantly to the research (guest authorship) or excluding those who did (ghost authorship).
• Violation of Ethical Standards: Breaches of ethical guidelines, such as lack of informed consent in studies involving human participants or improper treatment of animal subjects.

9.2 Investigation of Academic Misconduct

When allegations of academic misconduct are raised, Social Flourishing undertakes a thorough and impartial investigation to ascertain the validity of the claims. The investigation process involves the following steps:

1. Initial Assessment: Upon receiving a report or suspicion of misconduct, the editorial team conducts a preliminary review to determine whether the claim warrants a formal investigation.
2. Notification: If misconduct is deemed probable, the corresponding author is formally notified of the allegations and is given the opportunity to respond.
3. Comprehensive Investigation: An internal committee, potentially supplemented by external experts, conducts a detailed examination of the evidence. This may involve consulting with the authors' affiliated institutions or other relevant bodies.
4. Decision Making: Based on the findings, the committee decides whether the allegations are substantiated. Decisions may range from taking no action (if the claim is unfounded) to retracting the manuscript and imposing sanctions (in cases of confirmed misconduct).
5. Action and Communication: If misconduct is confirmed, Social Flourishing publishes a retraction notice linked to the original manuscript. Additionally, the authors' affiliated institutions are notified in writing to address the misconduct through their established procedures.

9.3 Composition of External Review Committees

To ensure fairness and impartiality in the investigation of academic misconduct, Social Flourishing maintains external review committees composed of experts with relevant expertise and no conflicts of interest related to the case. These committees are responsible for:

• Evaluating the evidence presented during the investigation.
• Providing unbiased recommendations based on established ethical guidelines and standards.
• Ensuring that the investigation adheres to principles of due process and confidentiality.

9.4 Response to Confirmed Misconduct

Upon confirmation of academic misconduct, Social Flourishing takes decisive actions to maintain the integrity of the scholarly record. These actions include:

• Retraction: The affected manuscript is retracted, and a retraction notice is published to inform the academic community of the misconduct.
• Sanctions: Depending on the severity of the misconduct, sanctions may be imposed on the authors, including bans on future submissions to the journal.
• Institutional Notification: The authors' affiliated institutions are notified in writing of the confirmed misconduct, allowing them to pursue their own disciplinary actions as deemed appropriate.
• Public Notification: To uphold transparency, details of the misconduct and the resulting actions are made publicly available through retraction notices and editorial statements.