Review Process

The peer review process is the single most important quality-control mechanism we operate. At SEM, our obligation as a publisher is to ensure that every manuscript receives a review that is fair, rigorous, timely, and transparent. Because SEM is used across many fields and frequently informs policy, practice, and follow-on research, we treat the review process as both a methodological check and a judgment about scholarly contribution. The text below describes, in exhaustive detail, how that process works from submission to final decision, what criteria are applied, how conflicts and appeals are handled, and what authors and reviewers can expect at each step.

  1. Overview and principles

Our review process is guided by a few simple principles: fairness, expertise, transparency, and reproducibility. Fairness means decisions are based on scholarly merit rather than author identity, institutional affiliation, or geography. Expertise means reviewers are selected for domain and methodological competence, including specific SEM knowledge where needed. Transparency means authors receive clear guidance and evidence supporting editorial decisions. Reproducibility means reviewers and editors take active steps to ensure reported models and results can be interrogated and, where reasonable, reproduced by independent researchers.

We operate a double-blind review by default so that both authors and reviewers are anonymous, unless authors explicitly opt for an alternative model where offered. Confidentiality is enforced at every stage. The Editor-in-Chief and associate editors oversee the process and make final decisions; reviewers provide independent expert evaluations and constructive feedback.

  1. Submission and initial checks (desk review)

Before a manuscript is sent for peer review, it undergoes several mandatory checks to protect reviewers’ time and to enforce minimum standards.

Administrative and technical checks

  • Ensure required elements are present: title page, manuscript, structured abstract, keywords, figures and tables, data availability statement, and any required ethics approvals.
  • Check formatting for readability and that equations are editable (Microsoft Word).
  • Confirm that the submission files are complete and legible.

Scope and fit

  • The handling editor (associate editor or Editor-in-Chief) reads the abstract and introduction to determine whether the manuscript fits the aims and scope of the journal and whether it makes a sufficiently clear contribution to SEM methodology or substantive applications.

Plagiarism and prior publication

  • All submissions are screened with plagiarism-detection software. The editorial office reviews any overlaps and requests explanations as needed. Prior publication of the same material, undisclosed preprints in contexts we consider conflicting, or substantial overlap without disclosure will result in desk rejection.

Ethics and data policy checks

  • For manuscripts with human participants, editors confirm that appropriate institutional review board or ethics committee approval is documented and that informed consent has been obtained or waived appropriately.
  • Submissions that involve restricted or sensitive data must include a statement describing data access conditions. If data or code are required for review or replication, this will be requested at the desk stage.

If a manuscript fails any of these checks, the editorial office will notify the corresponding author with a clear explanation and, where possible, a path to resubmission after correction. Manuscripts that pass these checks proceed to reviewer selection.

  1. Assignment to editor and reviewer recruitment

After the desk screening, the Editor-in-Chief or an associate editor with relevant expertise is assigned. That editor is responsible for overseeing reviewer selection and synthesizing the reviews into a recommendation. The recruitment process includes the following steps.

Identifying reviewers

  • Reviewers are selected based on: expertise in SEM (estimation, fit indices, multi-group, longitudinal, Bayesian, etc.), substantive familiarity with the manuscript’s topic (decision sciences, economics, sociology, etc.), publication record, and history of providing timely, constructive reviews.
  • We typically seek at least two independent reviewers. For highly technical methods papers, we will invite a methodological reviewer and a substantive reviewer. For multimethod, large simulation, or specialist software papers, we may add a third reviewer or an external statistical consultant.

Avoiding conflicts of interest

  • Editors ensure reviewers have no close collaboration, current institutional relationship, or financial interest that would bias the review. Reviewers must declare conflicts before accepting.

Invitations and acceptance

  • Invitations include the manuscript title, abstract, and expected timeline. Reviewers are asked to accept or decline promptly. If acceptance rates are low, editors will expand the pool.
  1. Review guidance and expectations of reviewers

We support reviewers with explicit guidance so evaluations are consistent and actionable.

Review scope
Reviewers are asked to evaluate:

  • Originality and contribution to SEM methodology or substantive problem.
  • Correctness and appropriateness of SEM specification, identification, and estimation strategy.
  • Adequacy of measurement models and treatment of measurement error.
  • Appropriateness of fit indices and interpretation of model fit.
  • Treatment of missing data, outliers, and robustness checks.
  • Transparency of reporting: data availability, syntax, model code, and sufficient detail to permit replication or reanalysis.
  • Ethical compliance and clarity of limitations.

Structured review form
Reviewers complete a structured report that includes:

  • Confidential recommendation to the editor (accept, minor revision, major revision, reject).
  • Major concerns (must be addressed to make the paper publishable).
  • Minor concerns and copyediting suggestions.
  • A checklist for methodological completeness (items such as: model identification confirmed, fit indices reported, alternative models considered, sensitivity analyses conducted).
  • A declaration of any potential conflicts.
  1. Double-blind specifics and confidentiality

Maintaining blinding

  • Authors must remove identifying information from the manuscript. Cover letters and title pages are submitted separately.
  • Reviewers must avoid searching for authors online or otherwise attempting to identify them. If a reviewer recognizes a work and cannot be objective, they should recuse themselves.

Confidentiality

  • Reviewers must not share or reuse ideas in the manuscript. Manuscripts under review are confidential materials.

Exceptions

  • In rare circumstances (e.g., when identity must be disclosed for conflict resolution) the editor may request that a reviewer disclose their identity to the Editor-in-Chief, but not to the authors.
  1. Decision making and handling divergent reviews

Editors synthesize reviews and make decisions that are reasoned, recorded, and communicated clearly.

Possible outcomes

  • Accept as is (rare).
  • Minor revision: authors address specific points; usually a single revision round.
  • Major revision: substantial rework required; may need another round of review.
  • Reject: manuscript not suitable for the journal or has unfixable flaws.

When reviewers disagree

  • If reviewers disagree substantially, the editor may:
  • Invite an additional reviewer.
  • Seek an adjudicating opinion from a senior board member or methodological editor.
  • Make an editorial decision weighing the arguments and providing a clear rationale to authors.

Decision letters

Decision letters include: a summary of the editorial decision, a synthesis of reviewer comments, explicit instructions for revision (if any), and a deadline for resubmission. Editors will identify which issues are essential versus recommended.

  1. Revision process and resubmission

If revisions are invited, authors must follow a structured resubmission process.

Author response

  • Authors submit a revised manuscript plus a point-by-point response letter that details how each reviewer and editor comment was addressed, with line numbers for edits. If authors disagree with a comment, they should provide a reasoned explanation.

Revision standards

  • Revisions must directly address essential criticism. All substantive changes must be highlighted or tracked. New analyses introduced in the revision must be justified and described in full.

Further review

  • Substantive revisions may return to the original reviewers; minor revisions may be assessed only by the editor. Editors decide whether additional external review is necessary.
  1. Handling conflicts of interest and ethical issues during review

Reviewer conflicts

  • Reviewers must declare conflicts before accepting. If conflicts emerge after accepting, reviewers must notify the editor and recuse themselves.

Allegations arising during review

  • If reviewers identify possible plagiarism, data fabrication, ethical breaches, or duplicate submission during the review, the editor will pause review and open an investigation consistent with COPE guidance. This may involve requesting raw data, contacting the authors for explanation, or consulting institutional officials.

Anonymous allegations

  • The editorial office will treat anonymous allegations seriously and investigate where evidence warrants.
  1. Use of statistical editors, reproducibility checks, and data requests

Because SEM manuscripts often hinge on technical details, we maintain additional safeguards.

Statistical/methodological editors

  • For papers with complex modeling, a dedicated statistical editor or consultant may be asked to review model specification, estimation procedures, and simulation designs.

Reproducibility checks

  • For replication-critical papers or those making strong methodological claims, authors may be required to provide code and data for a reproducibility check before acceptance.

Data and code availability

  • Authors should, whenever possible, deposit anonymized data and code in a recognized repository. If data cannot be shared due to confidentiality, authors must provide sufficient information or a plan for access under appropriate conditions.
  1. Appeals, corrections, and post-publication review

Appeals

  • Authors who believe a decision was unfair may appeal to the Editor-in-Chief. Appeals should be made in writing and present substantive grounds. Appeals are reviewed by senior editors who were not involved in the original decision.

Corrections and errors

  • If errors are discovered after publication, authors or readers should notify the editorial office. The journal will publish corrections, clarifications, or expressions of concern where appropriate.

Retraction policy

  • In cases of proven misconduct or fundamentally flawed results that cannot be corrected, the journal will retract the article with a clear retraction notice explaining the reasons.

Post-publication discussion

  • The journal supports scholarly discussion after publication. Letters to the editor, comments, and replies are handled through a formal process and may themselves undergo peer review.
  1. Reviewer recognition, training, and misconduct

Recognition

  • Reviewers receive formal thanks and may be acknowledged annually. We provide certificates and integration with recognition platforms when available.

Training and resources

  • We provide onboarding materials for new reviewers, including sample reviews, reviewer checklists, and guidance on ethical reviewing.

Reviewer misconduct

  • If a reviewer misuse privileged information, delays unduly, or behaves unethically, the Editor-in-Chief may bar the reviewer from future service and notify their institution when appropriate.
  1. Special cases

Special issues and guest editors

  • Special issues follow the same peer-review standards. Guest editors operate under the supervision of the Editor-in-Chief and must follow conflict-of-interest policies.

Transfer or cascade review

  • If a manuscript is declined but judged suitable for another journal in our portfolio, authors may be offered a transfer. Transferred manuscripts kept reviews were consented to by authors and reviewers.