SoSyM

Information about the review process

The review process is assisted by Springer's peer review system Snapp, for the author, editor, and reviewers. The steps are outlined below.

Overall Review Process

Paper is submitted via Snapp by an author contact. If the paper is a regular paper, the author chooses 'regular paper' from the collection drop-down provided in the submission form. The paper may also be part of a theme or special section, in which case the author selects the according collection respectively and has to mention the name of the theme/special section in the cover letter of the submission.
Paper is received and assigned a reference identifier and acknowledged to the author contact by the automated system.
Paper is assigned an editor to oversee the review process and make a recommendation to the editors-in-chief. Editors are assigned within 2 weeks of paper receipt. Theme/special section papers are assigned to the editor(s) of the theme/special section.
The editor recruits at least 3 reviewers for the paper and negotiates a timeframe for the review. The goal is to receive reviews within 8 weeks of the reviewers' acceptance of the review task.
Reviewers submit their reviews through Snapp.
Once all reviews are received, the editor makes a recommendation regarding paper acceptance to the editors-in-chief. The goal for the editor to make a recommendation to the editors-in-chief after receiving the completed reviews is 1 week.
The editors-in-chief notify the authors with the result of the review process, including reviewers' comments. Possible outcomes are that the paper is accepted, the paper is accepted with minor modifications (based on reviewers' comments), the paper is conditionally accepted with major changes (in which case final acceptance depends on results of a second review in which reviewers check that specified concerns are adequately addressed in the revision), and rejection. Note that in the case where major modifications are requested, the editor and reviewers are the same when the paper is re-submitted. The goal is for the editors-in-chief to contact paper authors within 1 week of receiving the editor's recommendation.

Please note: To avoid unlimited review cycles, there is a rule that a manuscript can undergo a major revision only once. That is, if a major revision of a manuscript that is a major revision of the first submission is needed then the manuscript must be rejected. The authors can still submit a substantially revised version as a new submission which also means that different editor and reviewers may be assigned. Due to the strict timeframe, theme and special section papers cannot be considered for the initial theme/special section anymore in this case and can only be submitted as regular paper to SoSyM again.

From an author's point of view the process is

Submit a paper to Snapp. The paper must be in PDF format. Additional information required as part submission includes paper title, authors, abstract, length, category, and author contact e-mail. If the paper is to be considered as part of a theme or special section, the author adds a note naming the theme/special section at the time of submission.
Contact author receives almost instant e-mail confirming receipt of the paper and a reference number.
Contact author receives e-mail from editors-in-chief regarding the outcome of the review process, including reviewer comments on the paper. See #7 above for possible outcomes. This mail should be received within 12 weeks of the initial submission.

From a reviewer's point of view the process is

A query is received from an editor via the automated system about being a reviewer for the paper. The query includes a proposed review deadline and an abstract of the paper.
If the reviewer accepts the review task, the reviewer accesses the automated system to obtain the paper.
The reviewer reviews the paper, fills out the SoSyM review form via Snapp and submits it. The editor makes a recommendation to the editors-in-chief regarding the paper.
If the paper acceptance recommendation is a request for a major revision, then when the paper is re-submitted, the reviewer will receive the revised version from the editor, and the process re-commences at step 2.

Sample review form

Review form (can be changed for different types of papers)

Follow SoSyM on Social Media: @sosym.org on Bluesky, @sosym.org@bsky.brid.gy on Mastodon, and/or our LinkedIn-page

main page submission review process editor guidelines tool paper theme sections special sections journal first best paper awards reviewer awards pictures banner SoSyM online contact		Information about the review process The review process is assisted by Springer's peer review system Snapp, for the author, editor, and reviewers. The steps are outlined below. Overall Review Process Paper is submitted via Snapp by an author contact. If the paper is a regular paper, the author chooses 'regular paper' from the collection drop-down provided in the submission form. The paper may also be part of a theme or special section, in which case the author selects the according collection respectively and has to mention the name of the theme/special section in the cover letter of the submission. Paper is received and assigned a reference identifier and acknowledged to the author contact by the automated system. Paper is assigned an editor to oversee the review process and make a recommendation to the editors-in-chief. Editors are assigned within 2 weeks of paper receipt. Theme/special section papers are assigned to the editor(s) of the theme/special section. The editor recruits at least 3 reviewers for the paper and negotiates a timeframe for the review. The goal is to receive reviews within 8 weeks of the reviewers' acceptance of the review task. Reviewers submit their reviews through Snapp. Once all reviews are received, the editor makes a recommendation regarding paper acceptance to the editors-in-chief. The goal for the editor to make a recommendation to the editors-in-chief after receiving the completed reviews is 1 week. The editors-in-chief notify the authors with the result of the review process, including reviewers' comments. Possible outcomes are that the paper is accepted, the paper is accepted with minor modifications (based on reviewers' comments), the paper is conditionally accepted with major changes (in which case final acceptance depends on results of a second review in which reviewers check that specified concerns are adequately addressed in the revision), and rejection. Note that in the case where major modifications are requested, the editor and reviewers are the same when the paper is re-submitted. The goal is for the editors-in-chief to contact paper authors within 1 week of receiving the editor's recommendation. Please note: To avoid unlimited review cycles, there is a rule that a manuscript can undergo a major revision only once. That is, if a major revision of a manuscript that is a major revision of the first submission is needed then the manuscript must be rejected. The authors can still submit a substantially revised version as a new submission which also means that different editor and reviewers may be assigned. Due to the strict timeframe, theme and special section papers cannot be considered for the initial theme/special section anymore in this case and can only be submitted as regular paper to SoSyM again. From an author's point of view the process is Submit a paper to Snapp. The paper must be in PDF format. Additional information required as part submission includes paper title, authors, abstract, length, category, and author contact e-mail. If the paper is to be considered as part of a theme or special section, the author adds a note naming the theme/special section at the time of submission. Contact author receives almost instant e-mail confirming receipt of the paper and a reference number. Contact author receives e-mail from editors-in-chief regarding the outcome of the review process, including reviewer comments on the paper. See #7 above for possible outcomes. This mail should be received within 12 weeks of the initial submission. From a reviewer's point of view the process is A query is received from an editor via the automated system about being a reviewer for the paper. The query includes a proposed review deadline and an abstract of the paper. If the reviewer accepts the review task, the reviewer accesses the automated system to obtain the paper. The reviewer reviews the paper, fills out the SoSyM review form via Snapp and submits it. The editor makes a recommendation to the editors-in-chief regarding the paper. If the paper acceptance recommendation is a request for a major revision, then when the paper is re-submitted, the reviewer will receive the revised version from the editor, and the process re-commences at step 2. Sample review form Review form (can be changed for different types of papers) Follow SoSyM on Social Media: @sosym.org on Bluesky, @sosym.org@bsky.brid.gy on Mastodon, and/or our LinkedIn-page