Submissions

Author Guidelines

The Journal of Global Trends in Social Science (JGTSS) welcomes English-language scholarship that explains social processes, institutions, relationships and change. Authors should make the contribution intelligible across relevant social-science disciplines while retaining the methodological precision their evidence requires. Submit through the JGTSS online submission system at https://jandoopress.com/journal/jgtss/about/submissions. These instructions accompany the journal’s individual ethics, peer-review, data, rights and charging policies; they do not replace those policies.

Fit contribution and the choice of article

JGTSS considers empirical, theoretical, historical, comparative and interdisciplinary social-science work. A paper involving technology, health, the environment or an organization should establish the social question being investigated and explain what the evidence contributes to it. A description of a new application, a consultancy recommendation or a list of local problems needs a reasoned analytical contribution to become a research article. Findings from one locality can be valuable when their context, evidential limits and relevance to wider debates are clearly explained.

Choose the article category that describes the work actually undertaken. Do not label a paper a review when it reports newly collected participant data, or call a literature-informed opinion piece a systematic review. Explain in the cover letter if a manuscript combines approaches or sits between categories. An invitation, thematic connection or institutional relationship does not secure acceptance or alter research-review requirements. Research papers, including substantive research presented in a short format, receive at least two independent external reviews under the journal’s double-anonymous procedure.

Original research and analytical case studies

For regular original research, 6,000–10,000 words is a useful planning range. An analytical case study will commonly need 4,000–8,000 words. These are recommendations, excluding the abstract, references, table content, figure captions and supplementary files. Authors may justify a different length where the evidence or argument requires it. Editors assess whether the paper is proportionate to its contribution; a recommended range is neither a minimum amount of text to generate nor a reason to omit indispensable methods.

Original research should articulate a question, situate it in an appropriate literature, explain the research design, present the relevant evidence and draw conclusions that follow from that evidence. Case studies should define the case and its boundaries, explain selection and access, distinguish the researcher’s account from the organization’s preferred account, and consider competing interpretations. Negative or null findings, replications and careful reanalyses may contribute when the question, procedures and limits are transparent. Novelty claims must be specific and supported rather than based on an unverified assertion that no previous study exists.

Reviews theory and Surrounding Communications Research

Reviews normally contain 8,000–12,000 words. State whether the work is systematic, scoping, narrative, integrative, critical or bibliometric, and choose methods consistent with that description. A critical or theoretical review may use a purposive literature selection, but must explain its intellectual boundaries and evaluate disagreements and excluded perspectives. A theory-focused research paper should define its concepts, explain the problem it resolves and show how its propositions, interpretation or synthesis advance a debate.

For the Surrounding Communications Research section, research papers normally contain 6,000–10,000 words and reviews 8,000–12,000 words. Perspectives, commentaries and forum contributions normally contain 1,500–2,500 words. Explain how the submission addresses relationships between communication, surrounding environments, communities or social life. Identify the section in the submission record. Short non-research contributions must distinguish interpretation from established findings and supply appropriate sources; genuinely non-research editorial material may be editorially assessed and labelled accordingly. The section name or short length never exempts substantive research from independent external review.

A complete submission package

Upload an editable anonymous manuscript, a separate title page and declarations file, and a cover letter. Supply each figure in a usable source format when available, plus the supplementary material needed to evaluate the argument. If tables or appendices are separate files, identify them clearly and indicate their intended position. A PDF may accompany the editable file to preserve the appearance of unusual scripts, notation or layouts, but should not be the only usable text source. Contact the editorial office before submission if the system cannot accept an essential format.

Include applicable reporting checklists, a review search appendix, a survey or interview instrument, a codebook, an analytical script or a repository review link when relevant to the study. Supply permissions and confidential ethics evidence as editorial material, not as public supplements. Describe the purpose and review/publication status of every file. Use neutral, descriptive filenames and retain a dated local copy of the complete package. Do not submit password-protected files, macros, executable attachments or unidentified archives without prior agreement on secure handling.

Title page and submission metadata

The separate title page gives the full manuscript title, article type and requested section; all authors’ preferred publication names in the agreed order; the institutional affiliation at which each author conducted the work, with city and country; and the corresponding author’s reliable email address. Explain a current address separately when an author has moved. Provide ORCID identifiers where available and ensure they belong to the named people. An unaffiliated researcher may state independent researcher and location rather than invent an institution.

Enter the same names, ordering, affiliations, title, abstract and keywords in the online form. Identify joint first or corresponding authorship only when the authors have agreed and explain its meaning. The corresponding author coordinates communication but does not acquire authority to change another author’s contribution or consent. Keep personal postal addresses and phone numbers out of the publication manuscript unless there is a necessary, agreed reason to publish them. Notify the office promptly of a contact change so that revision and proof messages reach the author team.

Preparing for double anonymous review

Remove author names, affiliations, acknowledgements, contribution names and identifying funding details from the review manuscript and its file properties. Check document comments, tracked changes, filenames, running headers, embedded objects, supplementary files and repository landing pages. Provide the complete information privately in the title-page/declarations file. Where necessary, place a neutral note in the review copy indicating that identifying information has been supplied to the editor; restore the verified detail before publication.

Cite your published work accurately in the third person instead of replacing every self-citation with an anonymous reference. Do not delete sources necessary to understand the argument, misstate a location, or disguise a study in a way that makes review misleading. If an ethics committee name, archive reference or fieldwork setting would identify the authors, discuss the least disruptive masking approach with the editor. Disclose any public preprint, thesis or presentation that makes the work identifiable. Anonymity can reduce avoidable cues; the journal cannot guarantee that knowledgeable reviewers will not recognize a project.

Cover letter and related outputs

Use the cover letter to explain the paper’s principal contribution, its fit with JGTSS, the chosen category and any departure from the normal length. Identify relevant preprints, dissertations, working papers, conference outputs, earlier versions and companion manuscripts. Provide links or copies and describe precisely what the submission adds. Explain shared datasets, overlapping samples, repeated quotations or translated material rather than relying on a change of title to distinguish related outputs.

Confirm that all authors have approved the submission, that the manuscript is not being considered simultaneously elsewhere, and that necessary publication rights have been obtained. Tell the editor about restrictions affecting confidential assessment, a potentially identifying review file, a journal editorial role held by an author, or a serious dispute relating to the work. Reviewer suggestions, if requested, must be genuine and accompanied by accurate institutional information and relevant conflicts. Authors may explain a reasoned reviewer exclusion request, but the editor retains responsibility for reviewer selection and independent assessment.

Title abstract keywords and organization

Use a concise title that identifies the social phenomenon, setting or approach without promising more than the study establishes. Avoid unexplained acronyms and sensational conclusions. An abstract of 150–250 words and four to six keywords are recommended. The abstract should state the question or purpose, the approach and evidence, the central findings or argument, and the contribution. A conceptual paper can describe its analytical approach instead of inventing a sample or numerical result. Normally omit citations, footnotes and specialist abbreviations from the abstract.

An introduction, methods, results and discussion structure is recommended for empirical studies when it fits the reasoning. Historical, ethnographic and theoretical scholarship may use another coherent arrangement. Numbered headings, unnumbered headings or another consistent scheme are acceptable, provided the levels are clear. Use readable type, page numbers and reasonably spaced text; line numbering is helpful for review. Do not spend time reproducing a typeset journal layout. Explain specialized concepts at first use and maintain consistent terminology without erasing meaningful distinctions between local and translated concepts.

Quantitative design samples and measures

Describe the target population, recruitment or data source, sampling frame, eligibility criteria, collection dates and setting. Explain sample-size reasoning and report the number approached, included and analysed when those counts can be established. Distinguish an individual, household, organization, text or other unit of analysis from the number of observations. A panel with repeated measurements is not a sample of equally many independent people. Explain clustering, weighting, oversampling, attrition and any exclusions made before or after inspecting results.

Define outcomes, exposures, predictors and covariates, including their coding, reference categories and measurement periods. Identify instruments, their source and permissions, and explain adaptations or translations. Report relevant evidence about measurement quality in the study context; citing a scale’s original validation does not automatically validate a new language or population. Describe data cleaning, inconsistent responses, duplicate records, missing values and handling of outliers. Distinguish decisions specified before analysis from exploratory changes, and identify the registration or protocol and relevant amendments when one exists.

Analysis uncertainty and causal claims

Identify the analytical methods and software versions, with sufficient information to reproduce the principal estimates. Explain model specification, interactions, transformations, assumptions, diagnostics and relevant robustness checks. Report the denominator used for each proportion, the sample available for each model, and what uncertainty intervals or error bars represent. Give effect estimates and their substantive scale alongside uncertainty. Avoid treating a threshold for statistical significance as the sole measure of social importance or using an insignificant test as proof of equivalence.

Explain adjustment for multiple comparisons where relevant and identify exploratory analyses. Do not selectively remove inconvenient specifications or outcomes from the reported research story. For causal claims, state the identification assumptions, temporal ordering, comparison strategy and plausible threats. A correlation, cross-sectional association or model fit does not by itself demonstrate a mechanism or intervention effect. When reporting monetary quantities, identify currency, price year and any inflation or purchasing-power adjustment. State the limits of geographic, institutional and temporal generalization rather than treating one accessible sample as representative of a whole society.

Qualitative ethnographic and participatory research

Explain the methodological orientation and why it suits the question. Describe recruitment, relationships with participants, the research setting, periods of engagement, interview or observation procedures, recording and transcription, and the role of translators or community collaborators. Explain how the amount and diversity of material were judged adequate for the inquiry. Do not use a claim of saturation as a substitute for describing the analysis or impose that concept where the chosen methodology does not use it.

Show how interpretations developed from the material, how themes or categories were constructed, and how contradictory evidence was considered. Describe researcher positioning and relevant power relationships, including whether authors were employees, service providers or advocates in the setting studied. Select quotations to support a reasoned interpretation rather than present them as self-explanatory proof. Explain pseudonyms, translated quotations and protective alterations. Maintain an auditable confidential record where appropriate, but do not publish identifying transcripts, precise locations or politically sensitive narratives merely to meet a transparency preference. Participant safety and agreed limits of consent constrain public sharing.

Historical documentary and comparative inquiry

Identify the archives, collections, documents, legal or policy texts, media sources and editions examined, with dates and stable identifiers where available. Explain selection, access limitations and the survival or institutional production of the record. Distinguish contemporaneous evidence from retrospective interpretation and from a source’s own claims. For translated material, indicate the translator or describe the translation process; retain original terms when their specific meaning is central to the analysis.

Comparative work should justify cases and the dimensions being compared, clarify periodization and avoid treating administrative categories as automatically equivalent across countries or eras. Explain how absent records, asymmetric evidence and changes in institutional definitions affect conclusions. Maps, timelines and coding tables can clarify the argument when their provenance and interpretive decisions are stated. If archive conditions prohibit reproducing a document, cite and describe it adequately and explain the restriction; do not upload an unauthorized scan. A methodological appendix may record source-selection decisions without exposing confidential informants or protected records.

Digital computational and mixed method studies

For platform or online research, identify the platform, collection period, access route and relevant API, dataset or software version. Explain queries, language filters, deduplication, deleted or unavailable content, bot detection and the difference between users, accounts, posts and interactions. Discuss how platform affordances and access constraints shape what is observable. Public accessibility alone does not settle consent, privacy, copyright or expectations of context; explain how these issues were assessed under the journal’s ethics and data policies.

Computational analyses should describe preprocessing, annotation, coder or model evaluation, training and test separation, and relevant error patterns across languages or groups. Identify model versions and material settings when automated tools generate research data or classifications. Keep research use of a model distinct from assistance in writing the article. Mixed-method studies should explain why the components were combined, their sequence and relative role, how evidence was integrated, and how disagreements between components affected interpretation. Present both components adequately instead of using one as an unexplained illustration of the other.

Evidence syntheses and reporting resources

For systematic reviews, provide the research question, eligibility criteria, complete search strategies for the principal sources, dates searched, screening process, reasons for exclusion at the appropriate stage, and the method used to assess and synthesize evidence. Identify protocol registration, amendments and updates where applicable. PRISMA 2020 offers a useful checklist and flow-diagram framework for reviews within its intended scope; use a relevant extension or another suitable reporting resource when the review design differs. Explain departures that materially affect readers’ ability to evaluate the synthesis.

Bibliometric work identifies database coverage, query syntax, download date, record types, disambiguation, deduplication and software settings. Citation counts and network prominence should not be treated automatically as measures of research quality. Narrative and critical reviews need a defensible selection rationale but should not imply exhaustive coverage when searches were selective. Reporting aids are tools for completeness, not badges of methodological quality. If a checklist is supplied, point to actual manuscript sections and explain genuinely inapplicable items rather than checking every box without supporting text.

Tables diagrams photographs and maps

Number tables and figures separately in the order in which the text first cites them. Every item must be explicitly discussed by number, for example, “Table 2 compares the interview groups” or “Figure 3 traces the communication network.” Do not use a location-dependent reference such as “the table above” or “the figure below.” Captions explain the population, period, units, abbreviations, source and any necessary qualification. Tables should contain editable text, with meaningful column headings, denominators and notes defining missing or suppressed values.

Supply diagrams and charts as editable or vector artwork where practicable. For raster production files, aim for 300 dpi for photographs, 500 dpi for combined image-and-line artwork and 1,000 dpi for line drawings at the intended size. Increasing a low-resolution file’s nominal dpi does not restore detail. Use legible labels, good contrast and patterns or symbols where colour alone would conceal a distinction. Provide useful alternative text. Maps need a scale and orientation where meaningful, a data/source credit and an explanation of any location masking needed to protect participants.

Integrity and rights in visual evidence

Keep the original image or underlying data used to make each visual. Explain any cropping, aggregation, blurring, colour adjustment or composite arrangement that affects interpretation. Do not erase an observation, move a network node to imply a result, alter a documentary photograph, or create a visual that misrepresents collected evidence. A conceptual illustration should be labelled so readers do not mistake it for an observed scene. For material involving AI, follow the journal’s AI and image-integrity policies and disclose the relevant method.

Identify the creator and rights holder of photographs, screenshots, maps, cartoons and reproduced tables. Obtain permission or establish a valid licence basis before submission, and provide the required credit. A citation acknowledges a source but does not by itself authorize reuse. Consider third-party content inside a screenshot and the identifiability of people in images or quoted online posts. Supply publication consent where required; research participation consent and permission to publish an identifiable image are separate matters. Identify material excluded from the article’s general licence in a clear credit line.

References quotations and language

APA seventh edition is recommended for references, but a different established and consistently applied style is acceptable at initial submission. Completeness and accuracy take priority over punctuation. Include every work cited in the text in the reference list, apart from material that the chosen style treats as a non-retrievable personal communication, and cite every reference-list item. Verify authors, publication dates, titles, source details, page ranges and DOI or other stable links against the actual sources consulted.

Cite datasets, software, archived web pages, reports and primary documents where they support the work. Distinguish a preprint from its published version and identify a retracted source when discussing it for a legitimate scholarly reason. Use quotation marks or block-quotation formatting and precise locations for verbatim passages. Translate quotations faithfully, explaining material choices where necessary. An English article may cite sources in other languages; provide enough original and translated or romanized information to locate them. Do not invent references, pad the bibliography, or add citations because an editor, reviewer or collaborator requests them without a scholarly reason.

Authorship contributions support and interests

Supply a contribution statement using CRediT roles in accordance with JGTSS’s authorship policy, matching roles to each named author’s actual work. A role label alone does not establish authorship eligibility. Acknowledge other assistance with the contributor’s permission, including substantive translation, statistical consultation or community support where appropriate. All authors must review the manuscript, approve submission and accept the responsibilities specified in the authorship policy. Explain any proposed authorship change promptly and obtain the necessary agreement rather than changing the online list silently.

Identify grants, institutional support and relevant non-financial assistance, with funder names and grant identifiers where applicable. Describe the funder’s or sponsor’s role in design, collection, analysis, interpretation, writing and the decision to submit. Declare relevant financial, professional, personal, political or institutional competing interests, including employment, consultancy and an editorial role at JGTSS. If there is no funding or no relevant conflict, say so explicitly. A statement of independence must reflect the actual arrangements, including any sponsor access, approval or publication restrictions.

Ethics consent and sensitive relationships

Give the ethics committee or other competent review body, approval or exemption reference and date where applicable, and explain the scope of the decision. If formal review was not required, state the applicable basis and the safeguards used; do not present an author’s personal view as an institutional exemption. Report informed-consent arrangements and any justified waiver. Research involving children, dependent relationships, marginalized groups or politically sensitive experiences should explain the protections relevant to the setting without exposing participants.

Provide a separate statement about consent to publish identifiable material when relevant. Explain deception, covert observation, incentives or use of existing administrative records where these affect ethical assessment. The editor may request supporting documentation securely; do not attach signed consent forms or identifiable participant lists as public supplementary material. A claim that data were publicly available does not remove the need to assess foreseeable harm. Where research involves communities or local partners, describe participation, benefit and permissions accurately, without claiming community endorsement solely because a gatekeeper granted access.

Data code and materials availability

Include a data, code and materials availability statement for every manuscript. Identify what evidence underlies the findings, where permitted materials can be accessed, the repository and persistent identifier, the deposited version and any access conditions. A review may share its search and screening materials; qualitative research may share an instrument, coding framework or carefully protected extract; a conceptual paper may state that it generated no new dataset. Make the statement specific to the work rather than automatically promising that all data are openly available.

If confidentiality, consent, third-party rights or another justified restriction prevents public release, identify the category of restriction and describe any feasible controlled access or alternative verification material. State who handles requests and the criteria for access when such a route genuinely exists. Do not promise data “on reasonable request” when no one has authority to release them. Anonymize review links where practical, deposit documentation and code dependencies, and check that files match the reported analysis. Openness does not justify publishing sensitive information, and restrictions do not remove the need for adequate editorial scrutiny.

AI disclosure originality and author responsibility

Declare material use of generative AI or automated assistance as required by the AI policy, identifying the tool, version when available, purpose and extent of use, and how the authors checked the output. Describe research applications in the methods as well as in a disclosure when needed to understand the evidence. An AI system cannot be an author, give participant consent, accept accountability or verify that a quotation or citation is authentic. The human authors remain responsible for the complete submitted work.

Follow the journal’s Originality Plagiarism and Overlapping Publication and its Artificial Intelligence and Automated Tools, including the applicable screening and review procedures. Do not rewrite a passage merely to disguise its source, manipulate a screening file, or conceal reused data. Clearly distinguish quotation, paraphrase and the authors’ own interpretation. Do not upload confidential manuscripts, participant records or protected source material to an external tool without a legitimate basis and appropriate safeguards. Explain an identified integrity concern with evidence; a detector result is handled under the relevant journal procedure.

Supplementary files and a reproducible record

Give each supplement a descriptive title, a short explanation and a citation in the manuscript, such as “Supplementary File S1 contains the interview guide.” Organize related items with a contents list. Use accessible formats, explain abbreviations, and supply a README for datasets and code stating file structure, variable definitions, software requirements and the steps producing key results. Include a licence or rights statement where appropriate, while respecting restrictions on source data and third-party instruments.

Supplements must not conceal essential information needed to understand the main conclusions. Reviewers should be able to locate the relevant evidence without searching an unstructured archive. Check that material intended for public release contains no names, hidden spreadsheet sheets, personal metadata or access tokens that should remain confidential. Identify confidential editorial-only files separately. After acceptance, submit final clean supplements and verify repository links; supplementary material may receive less production editing than the article, so authors must check its accuracy and accessibility themselves. Keep the deposited version stable and explain later substantive updates transparently.

Editorial assessment and responding to review

The initial assessment considers fit, originality, completeness, ethical acceptability and whether the evidence can support a useful review. A request for missing files is not an acceptance decision. Research selected for review is assessed by at least two independent external reviewers under double-anonymous review, with conflicts managed under the peer-review and editorial-independence policies. Editors may obtain additional specialist advice where necessary. Reviewers advise; the authorized editor makes the decision and explains material requirements for revision.

For a revision, submit a clean manuscript, a clearly marked copy and a point-by-point response linked to reviewer and editor comments. State where each change appears, explain a reasoned disagreement respectfully and distinguish new analysis from clarification. Recheck the abstract, tables, declarations and supplements whenever results change. If new data, ethics implications or authorship changes arise, identify them explicitly. Request an extension before the deadline if needed. Do not contact reviewers directly or seek an informal decision from a thematic organizer; appeals use the journal’s stated process.

Acceptance charges proofs and publication

Consult the separate Article Processing Charges and Refunds and Fee Waivers and Institutional Discounts for the current schedule, eligibility and effective-date transition. Financial assistance is considered separately from scholarly assessment. The acceptance communication identifies the next production steps and the applicable charge before an invoice is issued under those policies. Optional printed copies or other optional services are not a condition of publication. Direct financial and administrative queries to jgtsssupport@jandoopress.com; manuscript and review correspondence belongs with jgtsseditorialoffice@jandoopress.com.

At proof stage, check names, affiliations, title, abstract, quotations, numbers, tables, figures, references, links, declarations and licence credits against the accepted files. Answer production queries clearly and coordinate corrections across the author group. Proofs are not an opportunity to replace the study or add an unreviewed argument; substantive changes return to editorial assessment. Retain the accepted version and use the published citation when available. Report errors after publication promptly so they can be evaluated under the correction and retraction policies rather than silently replacing the scholarly record.

Submission Preparation Checklist

All submissions must meet the following requirements.

This submission meets the requirements outlined in the Author Guidelines.
This submission has not been previously published, nor is it before another journal for consideration.
All references have been checked for accuracy and completeness.
All tables and figures have been numbered and labeled.
Permission has been obtained to publish all photos, datasets and other material provided with this submission.

Privacy Statement

The names and email addresses entered in this journal site will be used exclusively for the stated purposes of this journal and will not be made available for any other purpose or to any other party.