Technological Forecasting and Social Change Submission Guide

Source: Clarivate JCR 2024, Elsevier editorial disclosures (accessed April 2026).

Source: TFSC author guidelines.

Use this page when deciding:

• whether the foresight or social-change angle is explicit
• whether methodological approach is appropriate for TFSC's standards
• whether the contribution connects to foresight or innovation-systems literature
• whether the manuscript belongs at TFSC versus Research Policy or Futures
• how to position the cover letter

• explicit foresight, scenarios, or social-change framing in the abstract's opening
• appropriate methodology (Delphi, scenario analysis, bibliometric, system dynamics, qualitative case studies)
• engagement with foresight literature: scenarios, futures studies, innovation-systems theory, sociotechnical regimes
• a cover letter establishing the foresight framing
• explicit policy or industry implications where relevant

In our pre-submission review work on TFSC submissions, we consistently see manuscripts that frame technology research as forecasting or innovation-systems work without engaging with the underlying foresight literature. TFSC editors specifically check whether the manuscript draws on the canonical foresight scholarship: scenarios methodology, Delphi traditions, sociotechnical-transitions theory, multi-level-perspective frameworks. Submissions that treat foresight as a buzzword applied to a technology survey are routinely returned with the suggestion that the authors either engage seriously with the foresight tradition or repropose to a technology-management venue where the contribution would be evaluated on different criteria.

• Pure technology research without foresight angle.
• Weak methodology.
• Missing connection to foresight literature.
• Narrow specialist focus.

TFSC is the flagship journal for foresight and futures studies.

Foresight framing required: the journal differentiates from technology-management venues by demanding explicit foresight, scenarios, or social-change angle.

The 50-60% desk rejection rate: decisive editorial screen.

Methodological diversity: TFSC accepts a wide range of methods (Delphi, scenario, bibliometric, system dynamics, qualitative case studies) but expects rigor.

The strongest TFSC cover letters establish:

• the foresight or social-change framing
• the methodological approach
• the contribution to foresight/innovation literature
• the central finding

• Is Technological Forecasting and Social Change a good journal?
• Research Policy submission guide

Before upload, run your manuscript through a TFSC foresight-framing readiness check.

In our pre-submission review work with foresight and innovation manuscripts targeting TFSC, three patterns generate the most consistent desk rejections.

In our experience, roughly 35% of TFSC desk rejections trace to scope mismatch (pure technology research without foresight framing). In our experience, roughly 25% involve weak methodology. In our experience, roughly 20% arise from missing connection to foresight literature.

• Pure technology research framing. TFSC editors look for explicit foresight or social-change angle. We observe papers framed as technology research without foresight implications routinely rejected. SciRev community data on TFSC consistently shows scope mismatch as the top filter.

• Weak methodology. TFSC accepts diverse methods but expects rigor. We see manuscripts with thin Delphi designs, weak scenario construction, or insufficient bibliometric analysis routinely returned.

• Missing connection to foresight literature. Successful TFSC submissions engage with scenarios, futures studies, innovation-systems, or technology-assessment literature. Manuscripts that ignore this scholarly conversation are routinely returned. A TFSC foresight-framing readiness check can identify whether the package supports a submission.

Clarivate JCR 2024 bibliometric data places TFSC among top foresight journals. SciRev author-reported data confirms 8-12 week first-decision windows.