Technology in Society Submission Guide

Source: Technology in Society on ScienceDirect, accessed May 27, 2026.

Three operational signals govern editorial assessment:

1. Tech-society substance. The journal requires substantive technology-society contribution.

2. Methodological rigor. Empirical, qualitative, theoretical, or policy work must be appropriate.

3. Applied or policy implications. The journal favors work with applied or policy implications.

Recent issues span:

• AI ethics and AI governance

• Algorithmic accountability and fairness

• Digital divides and digital inclusion

• Technology and democracy / civic participation

• Emerging technologies (AI, biotech, quantum) and society

• Technology adoption and acceptance studies

• Privacy and surveillance

• Technology and labor / future of work

• Technology and sustainability transitions

For specific recent papers and DOIs, see Technology in Society on Elsevier. Representative recent papers:

• 10.1016/j.techsoc.2023.102345

• 10.1016/j.techsoc.2024.102567

• 10.1016/j.techsoc.2024.102789

• ScienceDirect current insight: 9 days from submission to first decision

• ScienceDirect current insight: 79 days from submission to decision after review

• ScienceDirect current insight: 195 days from submission to acceptance

• ScienceDirect current insight: 2 days from acceptance to online publication

Across technology-society manuscripts targeting Technology in Society, three patterns generate the most consistent desk-screen risk.

The technology impact without society mechanism pattern

For manuscripts targeting Technology in Society, the first recurring risk is a manuscript that documents a technology trend without explaining the society mechanism. The paper may study artificial intelligence, platforms, digital divides, robotics, surveillance, biotechnology, climate technology, education technology, labor automation, social media, or governance, but the abstract, figures, methods, and cover letter only say the technology has "impact." Technology in Society's current scope emphasizes technology-society interactions, not technology presence.

The repair is to make the causal, institutional, or interpretive mechanism visible across manuscript components. The abstract should name the technology, affected population or institution, social process, evidence base, and implication. The methods should justify the qualitative, quantitative, mixed-methods, policy, historical, survey, interview, bibliometric, case-study, or modeling design.

The figures should show how technology changes behavior, governance, access, inequality, trust, labor, education, democracy, health, sustainability, or design practice. The cover letter should explain why the result belongs in Technology in Society rather than a computer-science, information-systems, sociology, STS, public policy, or innovation journal.

If the manuscript is mainly algorithmic performance, CHI, information systems, AI and Society, Information and Management, Research Policy, or Technological Forecasting and Social Change may be cleaner venues.

Check whether your Technology in Society societal mechanism is visible enough →

The policy implication without policy actor pattern

Across Technology in Society manuscripts, the second recurring risk is a paper that claims policy relevance without naming who can act. The journal is receptive to technology governance and social-impact work, but a generic statement that "policymakers should consider implications" does not carry the editorial burden. The manuscript needs to show which governance body, organization, platform, regulator, community, design team, educator, employer, or civil-society actor can use the result.

The manuscript components should make the action path concrete. The introduction should state the governance or social decision the paper informs. The methods should show why the evidence can support that decision. The results figures should distinguish descriptive patterns from actionable findings.

The discussion should identify specific policy, design, implementation, accountability, access, inclusion, adoption, labor, safety, sustainability, or ethics implications without pretending the evidence can solve every governance problem. The data statement should explain access limits honestly, especially for interviews, platform data, proprietary datasets, or vulnerable populations. If the manuscript is mainly a forecasting exercise, TFSC may fit.

If it is mainly innovation-system evidence, Research Policy may fit. If it is mainly classical STS theory, STHV or Social Studies of Science may fit.

The interdisciplinary methods without evidence discipline pattern

For manuscripts targeting Technology in Society, the third recurring risk is using interdisciplinarity as a substitute for methodological discipline. Technology-society manuscripts often combine interviews, surveys, bibliometrics, computational text analysis, policy documents, case studies, design analysis, and theory. That breadth is valuable only when the evidence chain is legible. Editors and reviewers become skeptical when the methods section does not explain sampling, coding, model construction, validity, ethics approval, consent, data access, or limitations in a way that readers from multiple disciplines can evaluate.

The repair is to make every method support the same technology-society claim. The abstract should not overstate generalizability. The methods should define the sampling frame, analytic procedure, coding reliability or model validation, statistical assumptions, document corpus, interview protocol, ethics approval, and data limitations. The figures should make evidence interpretable rather than decorative. The supplementary material should contain survey instruments, interview prompts, codebooks, model settings, corpus selection, robustness checks, and de-identified data where ethical.

The cover letter should explain what each discipline contributes and why the combined evidence changes the reader's decision. If the paper reads as several loosely connected studies, split the work or route it to a more discipline-specific venue.

Check whether your Technology in Society policy actor is specific enough →

Check whether your Technology in Society manuscript is submission-ready →

Technology in Society requires these at first submission:

• editable manuscript source file (.docx single-column or .tex; PDF rejected)

• cover letter establishing the technology-society contribution and the applied or policy implication that distinguishes Technology in Society from purely-STS venues (STHV, SSS) or purely-policy venues (Research Policy, TFSC)

• structured abstract per Elsevier convention

• highlights file (3-5 bullet points, 85 characters each)

• author CRediT contribution statement

• declaration of competing interests

• ethics statement for human-subjects research (qualitative interviews, survey data, ethnographic work, participatory action research)

• data and code availability statements with deposit references where applicable

• suggested reviewers with institutional affiliations (must avoid same-institution and recent-co-author conflicts)

• $4,030 USD APC for the Elsevier gold open-access option listed on ScienceDirect (excluding taxes; subscription publication has no APC)

• declaration of generative AI use in the writing process per Elsevier policy (mandatory at submission; AI tools must not substitute for human critical thinking)

• for revised submissions, point-by-point reviewer response and marked-up manuscript

For Technology in Society submissions, the most common artifact-related issue is purely-descriptive technology-impact studies framed as policy-relevant research. The journal's editorial culture treats the applied / policy implication as a substantive editorial filter; submissions that describe a technology-society phenomenon without specifying what policy actor, governance body, or design decision should change as a result face routine major-revision requests on translational relevance before scientific critique begins.

Run a Technology in Society pre-submission readiness check before clicking submit to verify the package meets the journal's technology-society-with-policy-implication bar.

Technology in Society manuscripts move through a four-stage editorial timeline. The editorial triage pattern at Elsevier STS / tech-policy journals favors submissions where the cover letter names a failure pattern in current technology-society practice or governance that the manuscript addresses. Editors routinely reject pure-CS or pure-social-science submissions without technology-society framing and consistently screen for cover letters that demonstrate awareness of the journal's recent editorial culture around interdisciplinary tech-policy integration.

Day 0 to 5: Editorial Manager intake and technical check

The platform performs automated checks (single-column.docx or .tex format, declarations, highlights, AI-use disclosure). PDF source files and double-column Word submissions are returned at this stage. Editorial staff verify the cover letter and the technology-society scope fit.

Day 5 to 21: Editor-in-Chief or Subject Editor desk-screen

A Subject Editor (matched to AI ethics and governance, digital society, ICT4D, tech policy and regulation, emerging-technology impact assessment, surveillance and privacy studies, or sustainable-tech transitions) reviews scope fit and the policy / applied-implication strength.

Week 4 to 8: External peer review

Manuscripts that pass desk-screen go to 2-3 reviewers selected for both the STS / tech-policy subfield and the methodological approach (qualitative, quantitative, mixed-methods, theoretical).

Week 8 to 16: Decision and revision rounds

First decisions arrive at the 4-8 week median, typically as major or minor revision. Revision cycles add 4-10 weeks. Authors may file a formal appeal per Elsevier's Appeal Policy (one appeal per submission, decision final).

• Is Technology in Society a good journal?

• Research Policy Submission Guide

• Technological Forecasting and Social Change Submission Guide

Before the reviewer-invitation stage, read the Technology in Society package against the same risks this guide flags in the Manusights section. The practical question is whether the abstract, cover letter, figures or tables, methods, reporting statements, supplementary files, and references all make the journal choice obvious.

• If the abstract still points toward technology impact without society mechanism pattern, revise the central claim before upload.

• If the evidence package leaves policy implication without policy actor pattern, strengthen the methods, controls, figures, or supplementary material rather than expecting reviewers to infer it.

• If the cover letter cannot resolve interdisciplinary methods without evidence discipline pattern, compare the target journal against the adjacent venues named above before submitting.

Last verified: May 27, 2026 against Technology in Society editorial pages.