Peer Review Process

Gemeinschaft: Journal of Social and Community Engagement is a double-blind peer-reviewed journal. Every manuscript submitted to the journal for publication undergoes a peer-review process designed to evaluate its academic quality, originality, methodological rigor, relevance, and contribution to the field of social and community engagement.

The peer-review process involves at least two reviewers with appropriate expertise relevant to the subject of the submitted manuscript. The identities of both authors and reviewers are kept confidential throughout the review process. This double-blind mechanism is implemented to promote impartiality, objectivity, academic integrity, and credibility in the evaluation of manuscripts.

The peer-review process at Gemeinschaft: Journal of Social and Community Engagement consists of the following nine stages:

1. Submission of Manuscript

The corresponding author or submitting author submits the manuscript through the journal's online submission system using the Open Journal Systems (OJS) platform. Authors are required to ensure that the submitted manuscript complies with the journal's submission requirements, formatting guidelines, and publication ethics policies.

2. Initial Editorial Assessment

Upon submission, the editorial office conducts an initial assessment to determine whether the manuscript is consistent with the journal's focus and scope. The editor also examines the manuscript's structure, organization, formatting, completeness, and compliance with the journal's Author Guidelines.

At this stage, the editorial team also conducts a preliminary assessment of the manuscript's academic quality, including its relevance, originality, clarity of objectives, methodological appropriateness, and potential contribution to the field. Manuscripts that clearly fall outside the journal's scope or fail to meet essential submission requirements may be rejected at this stage. Submitted manuscripts may also undergo similarity screening to identify potential plagiarism or substantial textual overlap before being sent for peer review.

3. Editorial Evaluation by the Editor-in-Chief

The Editor-in-Chief or designated handling editor evaluates whether the manuscript is suitable for further consideration based on its relevance to the journal, originality, academic significance, quality of presentation, and potential contribution to knowledge and practice in social and community engagement.

If the manuscript does not meet the journal's basic academic or editorial standards, it may be rejected without being sent for external peer review. This decision is made to ensure that the peer-review process is focused on manuscripts with sufficient potential for scholarly contribution.

4. Selection and Invitation of Reviewers

The handling editor identifies and invites reviewers whose expertise, research interests, and academic qualifications are relevant to the subject of the manuscript. Reviewers are selected based on their competence and ability to provide an independent and objective assessment.

The journal seeks to avoid conflicts of interest when selecting reviewers. The double-blind review system ensures that reviewers do not have access to the identity or institutional affiliation of the authors, while authors are not informed of the identities of the reviewers.

5. Reviewer Response to the Invitation

Invited reviewers are expected to consider whether the manuscript falls within their area of expertise, whether they can complete the review within the specified timeframe, and whether any actual, potential, or perceived conflict of interest exists.

Reviewers who are unable to provide an impartial and timely assessment should decline the invitation and notify the editor as soon as possible. Where appropriate, reviewers who decline may recommend another qualified researcher who could undertake the review.

6. Conduct of the Peer Review

Reviewers evaluate the manuscript carefully and systematically. They are expected to assess the manuscript's originality, relevance, theoretical foundation, methodology, analysis, interpretation, discussion, conclusions, references, presentation, and overall contribution to the field.

Reviewers may conduct several readings of the manuscript to develop a comprehensive assessment. Their comments should be objective, constructive, clear, and supported by appropriate academic reasoning. Personal criticism of authors is not permitted.

Following the evaluation, reviewers submit their recommendations to the editor. The recommendation may include acceptance, minor revision, major revision, or rejection. The final editorial decision, however, remains the responsibility of the editor and is not determined solely by the reviewer's recommendation.

7. Editorial Evaluation of Review Reports

The Editor-in-Chief or handling editor evaluates the reviewers' reports and recommendations before reaching an editorial decision. The editor considers the substance and quality of the reviewers' comments rather than relying solely on their recommended decision.

If the reviewers provide substantially different assessments or recommendations, the editor may seek an additional review from another qualified reviewer or conduct further editorial assessment before making a final decision.

8. Communication of the Editorial Decision

The editor communicates the editorial decision to the corresponding author through the journal's online system or other official communication channels. Where appropriate, the decision is accompanied by anonymized reviewer comments and editorial recommendations to assist the authors in improving the manuscript.

Authors receiving a revision decision are expected to respond carefully to the reviewers' comments and provide a revised manuscript together with an appropriate explanation of the changes made. Reviewers may also be informed of the editorial outcome where appropriate.

9. Final Decision and Publication

If the manuscript is accepted, it proceeds to the subsequent editorial stages, including copyediting, proofreading, layout, and final publication preparation.

If the manuscript requires minor or major revisions, the authors must revise the manuscript in accordance with the reviewers' and editor's recommendations and resubmit the revised version within the specified period. Depending on the extent of the revisions, the revised manuscript may be returned to the original reviewers for further evaluation or may be assessed by the handling editor.

If the revised manuscript satisfactorily addresses the substantive concerns raised during peer review and meets the journal's editorial and academic requirements, the editor may accept the manuscript for publication. Manuscripts that fail to adequately address major concerns may be rejected.

Once accepted and finalized, the article is published online through the journal's platform and made available to readers in accordance with the journal's open-access policy.

Editorial Independence and Review Integrity

Gemeinschaft: Journal of Social and Community Engagement is committed to ensuring that peer-review and editorial decisions are based on academic merit, originality, methodological rigor, relevance, and scholarly contribution. Neither authors nor reviewers may attempt to influence the review process improperly. Editors and reviewers are expected to maintain confidentiality, disclose conflicts of interest, and uphold the principles of fairness, objectivity, and academic integrity throughout the review process.