Child and Adolescent Cultural-Social Research

This journal employs a double-blind peer-review process to evaluate submitted articles. In this process, neither the reviewers nor the authors are aware of each other's identities. The peer-review process typically takes less than three months and involves the following stages:

Initial Submission and Assessment (10-day period)

• Author Registration and Article Submission: The corresponding author submits the article through the journal's website, providing necessary author information and completing the required profile.
• The corresponding author is responsible for ensuring author rights and resolving any disputes between authors or with other institutions.
• The corresponding author must confirm that the article has not been simultaneously submitted to multiple journals.
• The submitted article should exhibit less than 15% similarity or overlap with other published works.
• Initial Review: The article undergoes an initial assessment to determine its alignment with the journal's objectives and themes, its structural and content quality, and the appropriateness and currency of its sources. The editor-in-chief or a subject editor conducts this initial review.
• Potential Revisions: If preliminary formal or content-related revisions are required, the article is returned to the corresponding author for necessary modifications.
• Reviewer Assignment: Upon successful completion of the initial assessment, the article is assigned to two specialized reviewers from the journal's editorial board.

Double-Blind Peer Review

• Reviewer Evaluation: The assigned reviewers evaluate the article and submit their feedback, along with a completed evaluation form, to the editor-in-chief or subject editor.

Post-Review Article Status (Following the peer-review process, articles are categorized into one of three groups):

1. Rejection: If both reviewers reject the article, it is removed from the acceptance process, and the corresponding author is notified of the decision.
2. Acceptance: If both reviewers approve the article without requiring revisions, it proceeds to the final acceptance stage and is scheduled for publication. The corresponding author is informed of the publication fee, as outlined on the journal's website.
3. Referral to a Third Reviewer: If one reviewer approves the article while the other rejects it, the article is referred to a third reviewer for further evaluation.

• Revision and Resubmission: If the third reviewer deems the article suitable for publication but requires major or minor revisions, the article will be returned to the corresponding author for necessary revisions.
• Revision Deadline: The revised manuscript must be resubmitted within 15 days.
• Final Decision: The final decision to accept or reject the article will be made after the reviewers have assessed the revisions. If the author fails to resubmit within the deadline, the editor will compare the revised manuscript with the reviewers' comments and make a decision.
• Author Confirmation: Upon final acceptance, the corresponding author will be contacted to confirm their institutional affiliation and author details.
• DOI Assignment: Each accepted article will be assigned a DOI (Digital Object Identifier) after editing and preparation for publication.
• Open Access: All published articles will be freely available in PDF and XML formats on the journal's website.
• Publication Timeline: The publication timeline depends on the number of accepted articles. Priority will be given to research articles that demonstrate originality, innovation, and up-to-date subject matter and references.

Reviewer Guidelines:

• Confidentiality: All article information must be kept confidential throughout the review process, which will be conducted anonymously.
• Decision Making: Reviewers assist the editor and editorial board in making decisions about article acceptance or rejection.
• Detailed Feedback: Reviewers' suggestions for revisions (major or minor) should be clearly stated in the comments for the author.
• Conflict of Interest: Reviewers must avoid conflicts of interest and report any potential conflicts promptly.
• Objective Assessment: Reviewer judgments regarding the quality and content of articles should be based on expert and scientific opinions.
• Timely Reviews: If a reviewer fails to complete the review on time or if the review is not conducted in accordance with ethical guidelines, new reviewers will be assigned to the article.