Technology in Society Submission Guide

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

Source: Technology in Society author guidelines.

Use this page when deciding:

• whether sociotechnical analysis is rigorous
• whether theoretical grounding is appropriate
• whether broader relevance is articulated

• a clear sociotechnical analysis of technology-society interactions
• theoretical grounding in sociotechnical, STS, or innovation theory
• rigorous methodology appropriate to the research question
• broader relevance beyond the specific case
• a cover letter establishing the sociotechnical contribution

• Descriptive technology studies without sociotechnical analysis.
• Narrow case studies without broader relevance.
• Weak theoretical grounding.
• Pure technology without society dimension.

Technology in Society is a flagship sociotechnical research journal.

Sociotechnical-analysis expectation: the journal differentiates from technology-focused journals by demanding analysis of technology-society interactions.

Theoretical-grounding expectation: editors expect engagement with sociotechnical, STS, or innovation theory.

The 40-50% desk rejection rate: decisive editorial screen.

The strongest Technology in Society cover letters establish:

• the sociotechnical contribution
• the theoretical grounding
• the methodological approach
• the broader relevance

• Is Technology in Society a good journal?

Before upload, run your manuscript through a Technology in Society sociotechnical readiness check.

In our pre-submission review work with sociotechnical manuscripts targeting Technology in Society, three patterns generate the most consistent desk rejections.

In our experience, roughly 35% of Technology in Society desk rejections trace to descriptive technology framing. In our experience, roughly 25% involve narrow case studies without broader relevance. In our experience, roughly 20% arise from weak theoretical grounding.

• Descriptive technology studies without sociotechnical analysis. Technology in Society editors look for analysis of technology-society interactions, not just technology adoption or implementation studies. We observe submissions framed as technology deployment or user studies without sociotechnical analysis routinely desk-rejected.

• Narrow case studies without broader relevance. Editors expect findings that extend beyond the specific case. We see manuscripts framed around one organization, one city, or one country without broader sociotechnical implications routinely declined.

• Weak theoretical grounding. Technology in Society specifically expects engagement with sociotechnical, STS, or innovation theory. We find papers reporting empirical findings without theoretical grounding routinely returned. A Technology in Society sociotechnical readiness check can identify whether the package supports a submission.

Clarivate JCR 2024 bibliometric data places Technology in Society among top sociotechnical journals.

In pre-submission diagnostic work for top sociotechnical research journals, we consistently see four signals that distinguish strong submissions from weak ones. First, the manuscript must analyze technology-society interactions, not just technology; submissions reporting only technology features or adoption fail at desk screening. Second, theoretical grounding should engage with sociotechnical, STS, or innovation theory. Third, methodology should be appropriate to the qualitative or quantitative research question. Fourth, broader relevance should extend beyond the specific case; narrow case studies fit specialty regional or sector journals better.

The single most consistent feedback class we deliver in pre-submission diagnostics for Technology in Society is the descriptive-versus-sociotechnical distinction. Technology in Society editors expect analysis of technology-society interactions, not just technology studies. Submissions framed as "we examined the implementation of system X in organization Y" routinely receive "where is the sociotechnical analysis?" feedback during desk screening. We coach authors to lead with the sociotechnical question and frame the case study in service of that question. Papers framed as "we examined how system X reshapes work practices and power relations in setting Y" receive better editorial traction than papers framed as "we examined the adoption of system X." The same logic applies across sociotechnical research journals: editors are operating with limited slot inventory, and the submissions that get traction lead with the sociotechnical question.

Beyond the rubric checks, three pre-submission diagnostic patterns recur most often in the manuscripts we review for Technology in Society. First, manuscripts where the abstract emphasizes technology features rather than sociotechnical analysis are flagged at desk for descriptive framing. We recommend the abstract's central sentences state the sociotechnical question, the analytical approach, and the substantive finding. Second, manuscripts where the literature review surveys only technology literature without engaging with sociotechnical theory are flagged for theoretical grounding gaps. We recommend the literature review establish the sociotechnical or STS theoretical framing alongside the technology context. Third, manuscripts that lack engagement with Technology in Society's recent issues are at risk of being told the contribution doesn't fit the publication conversation.

The strongest manuscripts we coach distinguish themselves on three operational behaviors. First, they confine the cover letter to one page and use it to make the case for fit, contribution, and significance, not to summarize the abstract. Second, they include a one-sentence elevator pitch in the cover letter's opening that the editor can use when discussing the manuscript internally. Third, they identify the specific recent papers in the journal that this manuscript builds on and the specific competing or contradicting work; this signals the authors are operating inside the publication conversation rather than outside it.