Decision-Making Process

Here are the Decision-Making Process workflows for the final two journals in your list, completing the full set of 17:

16. Urban and Rural Social Dynamics Journal (URSDJ)

Editorial Decision-Making Process At URSDJ, we maintain a rigorous, ethical, and transparent editorial process to ensure that research exploring the complexities of urban and rural development meets the highest scholarly standards.

1. Initial Submission Screening

  • Preliminary Check: The editorial office verifies that the manuscript follows formatting guidelines and passes a 15% similarity threshold via Turnitin.

  • Scope and Relevance: The Editor-in-Chief determines if the research aligns with the journal’s focus on spatial dynamics, migration, or regional development.

2. Peer Review Process

  • Reviewer Assignment: Manuscripts are assigned to two or more independent reviewers for a double-blind review.

  • Evaluation Criteria: Reviewers assess the research design, data collection methods (quantitative or qualitative), and the originality of the social dynamic analysis.

3. Editorial Evaluation and Final Decision

  • Consolidation: The handling editor synthesizes feedback to inform the final outcome. In cases of significant disagreement, a third reviewer is consulted.

  • Final Decision: The Editor-in-Chief issues a decision: Accept, Minor Revisions, Major Revisions, or Reject.

4. Revisions and Resubmission

  • Major Revisions: Authors are granted 4–6 weeks to address spatial or theoretical critiques, often leading to a second round of peer review.

5. Communication and Appeals

  • Appeals Process: Formal written appeals are reviewed by an independent panel. The panel’s decision is final and binding.

6. Post-Acceptance Workflow

  • Production: Includes professional copyediting for clarity and consistency before publication under the CC BY-NC 4.0 License.