Technology in Society Submission Process
A process-first guide to Technology in Society's Editorial Manager upload, double-anonymized file checks, editor triage, peer review, decision meanings, and timing.
Readiness scan
Find out if this manuscript is ready to submit.
Run the Free Readiness Scan before you submit. Catch the issues editors reject on first read.
How to approach Technology In Society
Use the submission guide like a working checklist. The goal is to make fit, package completeness, and cover-letter framing obvious before you open the portal.
Stage | What to check |
|---|---|
1. Scope | Scope check |
2. Package | Formatting check |
3. Cover letter | Editorial screening |
4. Final check | Peer review |
Quick answer: The Technology in Society submission process runs through Elsevier Editorial Manager, double-anonymized file preparation, office checks, editor triage, peer review, and a decision path that can include return, revision, rejection, transfer, acceptance, or production. Treat the upload as a technology-society record: every field should show the social mechanism, evidence chain, policy actor, and decision consequence.
Start at the Technology in Society Editorial Manager portal only after the manuscript package already separates the title page from the anonymized manuscript and shows why the paper belongs at the technology-society intersection. The upload sequence is not just clerical. It creates the first editorial view of the paper: title, abstract, manuscript file, Highlights, cover letter, figures or tables, methods, declarations, data statement, supplementary material, and reviewer suggestions. If those artifacts make the technology topic obvious but leave the social mechanism, affected actor, or policy consequence vague, the process record weakens before external review begins.
For this journal, the process value is in making interdisciplinary fit legible. A clean Elsevier record should show the technology, the society mechanism, the evidence base, the stakeholder or decision-maker, the ethical or policy implication, and the reason Technology in Society is the right venue rather than Research Policy, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Computers in Human Behavior, AI and Society, or a discipline-specific outlet. The Manusights interpretation below focuses on those author-controllable record signals rather than repeating the portal steps alone. The practical test is whether the uploaded package lets an editor see the social mechanism and decision context before looking for reviewers.
This process job is different from journal-fit planning. The Technology in Society pre-upload fit guide owns the broader question of whether the manuscript belongs in the journal. This page is for the operational workflow after you choose Technology in Society: what to prepare before opening Editorial Manager, what can delay the record in the first quality check, what the editor tests during triage, how peer review is likely to be routed, and how to read each decision outcome.
Official sources anchor the fixed facts. ScienceDirect's Technology in Society journal page gives the current aims, APC, timing insights, editor-in-chief listing, and journal metrics. The Technology in Society guide for authors describes the double-anonymized review process, author-package expectations, ethics policies, data statement, file requirements, and online submission route. The process interpretation below separates those official facts from Manusights observations about technology-society submissions.
From our manuscript review practice
For Technology in Society submissions, the process problem is often not missing files. It is a generated record that makes the social mechanism or policy actor harder to see than the technology topic.
How does the Technology in Society workflow differ from a broad author guide?
The searcher job here is procedural: what happens when an author starts the Elsevier Editorial Manager record, what the portal asks for, and where the record can stall. It is not a broad verdict on whether Technology in Society is the best target.
Use the split this way:
Question | Best Manusights owner | Why |
|---|---|---|
Should my manuscript target Technology in Society? | Owns broad fit, technology-society scope, venue alternatives, and whether the social mechanism is strong enough | |
What happens in Editorial Manager? | This page | Owns upload sequence, double-anonymized checks, editor triage, peer review, decisions, and timeline |
Is the manuscript more innovation-policy than society-mechanism? | Owns innovation systems, firm strategy, science policy, and policy-economics routing | |
Is the manuscript mainly forecasting or foresight? | Owns forecasting, foresight, scenarios, diffusion, and technology-change trajectory framing | |
Is the manuscript mainly user behavior or HCI? | Owns psychological/user-behavior and human-computer interaction fit |
The boundary matters because Technology in Society process intent is narrower than broad submission intent. This page assumes the author has already chosen the journal and now needs the record to survive Elsevier upload checks, anonymization, editorial triage, reviewer routing, and decision interpretation.
What are the current Technology in Society process facts?
Process item | Current Technology in Society fact |
|---|---|
Submission system | Elsevier Editorial Manager |
Official route | https://www.editorialmanager.com/tis/ |
Peer-review model | Double anonymized review, equivalent to double-blind preparation for the author-facing file package |
Initial assessment | Editors assess suitability before suitable papers are typically sent to at least two reviewers |
Current first-decision insight | 9 days from submission to first decision |
Current reviewed-decision insight | 79 days from submission to decision after review |
Current acceptance timeline | 195 days from submission to acceptance; 2 days from acceptance to online publication |
Open-access APC | USD 4,030 excluding taxes; subscription publication has no author publication fee |
Main process pressure | Whether the generated record makes the technology-society mechanism and decision-maker visible |
These figures are journal-level ScienceDirect insights, not promises for a single manuscript. The 9-day first-decision number mostly tells authors that Technology in Society has a fast early screen. It does not mean a paper sent to external reviewers has completed peer review in nine days.
Use 9 days as the early-screen planning point. Use 79 to 195 days for complex or delayed external-review cases. The slower cases usually involve interdisciplinary reviewer matching, unclear social mechanism, data-access constraints, human-participant ethics, contested policy interpretation, or a manuscript that straddles technology studies, information systems, public policy, and management.
What happens day by day after Technology in Society submission?
Stage | Timing | What is happening | What to prepare for |
|---|---|---|---|
Stage 1 | Day 0 | Editorial Manager record is created, files are uploaded, metadata is entered, and the generated PDF/package is checked | Confirm title page, anonymized manuscript, Highlights, declarations, data statement, cover letter, figures, tables, and supplements before final submission |
Stage 2 | Days 0 to 2 | Office and technical checks review authorship, competing interests, ethics statement, plagiarism screening, reporting checklist needs, data availability statement, file format, anonymization, figures, references, and declarations | Fix any return quickly; do not let an identity leak or missing statement slow the scientific screen |
Stage 3 | Days 1 to 9 | Editor triage checks aims-and-scope fit, technology-society mechanism, decision-maker relevance, evidence discipline, and reviewer availability | Read a fast first decision as a process signal, not as full peer review |
Stage 4 | Weeks 2 to 8 | Reviewer invitations may begin for papers that clear the first screen | Expect reviewer matching across technology domain, social-science method, policy or governance consequence, and ethics/equity implications |
Stage 5 | Around 79 days after review path | Reviewer reports and editorial synthesis produce revision, rejection, transfer, or acceptance direction | Prepare for both methodology critique and claims about whether the societal consequence is actionable |
Stage 6 | Around 195 days to acceptance path | Revised manuscripts move through final decision, production, and online publication if accepted | Audit proof corrections, data links, funding, CRediT, conflicts, AI-use declaration, and supplementary files |
The calibrated range is straightforward: administrative returns and desk-screen outcomes can happen quickly, while externally reviewed interdisciplinary manuscripts can move over months. A Technology in Society paper that needs AI governance, sociology, policy, management, and method reviewers is more likely to behave like the 79-to-195-day path than the 9-day first screen.
What pre-submission checklist should be done before Editorial Manager?
Before opening the Technology in Society record, make sure these pieces are ready:
- manuscript file with the technology, society mechanism, affected actor, evidence base, and implication visible in the title, abstract, introduction, methods, figures or tables, and conclusion
- separate title page and anonymized manuscript file that support double-anonymized peer review
- Highlights that explain the technology-society contribution, not only the technology topic
- cover letter explaining why Technology in Society fits better than Research Policy, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Computers in Human Behavior, AI and Society, Information and Management, or a discipline-specific venue
- statement-ready material for authorship, CRediT roles, competing interests, funding, ethics approval or exemption, informed consent where relevant, reporting checklist where needed, generative-AI declaration, and data availability
- figures and tables that show actor relationships, governance mechanisms, access/equity effects, adoption pathway, institutional decision point, or social consequence
- supplementary files such as codebooks, survey instruments, interview protocols, corpus selection, robustness checks, model settings, or de-identified data where ethical
- suggested reviewers who can evaluate both the technology domain and the social, policy, governance, or methodological claim
The generated record should make one thing obvious: what technology-society relationship is being tested or theorized, which social force or decision context matters, how the evidence supports the claim, and why the paper belongs in Technology in Society rather than a nearby technology, policy, STS, HCI, or information-systems venue.
Check your Technology in Society process package before upload →
Readiness check
Run the scan against the requirements while they're in front of you.
See score, top issues, and journal-fit signals before you submit.
Initial Quality Check: what can stop the Technology in Society record early?
Elsevier Editorial Manager can delay the record before a scientific editor evaluates the contribution. The routine checks include authorship information, competing interests, ethics statement where relevant, plagiarism check, reporting checklist material where needed, file integrity, title-page separation, double-anonymized manuscript preparation, permissions, references, supplementary files, figure quality, generative-AI declaration, and the data availability statement.
For Technology in Society, an early return can also expose a process-positioning problem. A complete file set is not enough if the generated PDF makes the manuscript look like technology adoption, platform analytics, bibliometrics, AI performance, engineering systems, or policy commentary without a clear society mechanism. The first editorial record should not force the editor to infer why this is technology-and-society research.
The first 48 hours should not ask the editor to reconcile mismatched artifacts:
- the abstract should name the technology, population or institution, social mechanism, evidence base, and implication
- Highlights should translate the contribution into technology-society claims rather than generic novelty bullets
- figures or tables should make actor relationships, governance levers, design consequences, or distributional effects visible
- the methods should explain sampling, data access, coding, model construction, validity, ethics, and limitations clearly enough for an interdisciplinary reviewer
- the cover letter should identify the decision-maker, policy actor, organization, platform, community, or design context that can use the finding
These are not cosmetic upload issues. They determine whether the Technology in Society record is easy to route, screen, and review.
Editorial Triage: what does the first screen test?
The editor's first screen asks whether the paper is genuinely a Technology in Society paper.
Three tests matter most:
- Technology-society mechanism. Does the manuscript explain how a technology and a social, economic, business, political, cultural, ethical, or institutional process interact?
- Decision-maker relevance. Does the paper help a policymaker, platform, firm, educator, regulator, community, designer, worker organization, or civil-society actor make a better decision?
- Evidence discipline. Does the method match the claim, whether the evidence is qualitative, quantitative, mixed-methods, historical, theoretical, survey-based, interview-based, bibliometric, computational, or policy-document based?
A fast first decision should be read as a screen signal. It can mean the package was returned administratively, the manuscript did not sit inside the journal's aims and scope, or the editor did not see enough actionable technology-society contribution to justify reviewers. It should not be read as proof that all Technology in Society decisions happen in nine days.
The strongest process package makes the first screen easy. The title names the technology-society object. The abstract identifies the social mechanism. The methods justify the evidence base. The figures make the actor or decision pathway visible. The discussion explains what changes for governance, design, adoption, accountability, equity, labor, education, sustainability, or democratic practice.
Peer Review: what happens after triage?
Once a Technology in Society manuscript clears the first screen, reviewer selection usually follows the intersection in the claim rather than the technology label alone.
Reviewer routing often depends on:
- technology-domain reviewers for AI, platforms, digitalization, robotics, biotechnology, climate technology, health technology, education technology, surveillance, cybersecurity, or Industry 4.0/5.0 topics
- social-science or STS reviewers for institutions, governance, ethics, inequality, trust, democracy, labor, culture, education, sustainability, or technology assessment
- method reviewers when the paper relies on interviews, surveys, bibliometrics, computational text analysis, case studies, document analysis, mixed methods, or modeling
- policy or management reviewers when the decision implication is regulatory, organizational, public-sector, platform-governance, or innovation-system oriented
Technology in Society uses double-anonymized peer review, which authors should treat as double-blind preparation for the reviewer-facing files. Authors should assume reviewer identity, author identity, conflict checks, and anonymized-file preparation matter throughout the process. Suggested reviewers should cover the technology domain, social mechanism, method, and decision context. They should not simply list technologists who know the system or social scientists who know the topic.
The response from review usually turns on whether the process package made the interdisciplinary claim auditable. A paper can be timely and still receive a difficult decision if reviewers decide the technology topic is descriptive, the policy implication has no actor, the method cannot support the societal claim, or the work is cleaner for Research Policy, TFSC, Computers in Human Behavior, AI and Society, or an STS theory journal.
What do we see across our Technology in Society pre-submission process reviews?
In our pre-submission review work with Technology in Society manuscripts, we treat the process package as one connected technology-society record: title, abstract, Highlights, introduction, methods, figures, tables, data statement, ethics statement, cover letter, references, and reviewer-suggestion logic. A paper can be topical and still be process-weak if those pieces make the editor reconstruct whether the work is actually about technology in society or merely technology plus implications. This is the specific failure pattern our internal analysis flags most often for Technology in Society process reviews: the file set is complete, but the editorial triage pattern is still hard to read.
Technology topic without society mechanism. The first recurring pattern is that the manuscript studies AI, platforms, robotics, surveillance, digital inclusion, Industry 4.0, climate technology, health technology, or education technology but never explains the social mechanism. The abstract says the technology has impact. The methods measure usage or attitudes. The discussion gestures toward implications. What the record does not show is how technology changes access, power, behavior, institutions, labor, governance, trust, equity, sustainability, or cultural practice.
Policy relevance without policy actor. The second pattern is a conclusion that says policymakers should care without naming who can act. Technology in Society is receptive to applied and policy implications, but the process record needs a specific actor: regulator, ministry, school, hospital, platform, employer, municipality, standards body, community organization, civil-society group, design team, or firm. Without that actor, the paper reads as general commentary rather than a decision-relevant contribution.
Interdisciplinary evidence without evidence discipline. The third pattern appears when the paper combines interviews, surveys, platform data, bibliometrics, case studies, design analysis, or document review without a coherent evidence chain. Interdisciplinarity is not a substitute for method clarity. The methods, figures, tables, supplementary files, and limitations should show what each evidence source proves, what it cannot prove, and how the pieces support one technology-society claim.
Wrong neighboring venue. The fourth pattern is venue confusion visible inside the process package. An innovation-system paper may fit Research Policy. A forecasting paper may fit Technological Forecasting and Social Change. A user-behavior paper may fit Computers in Human Behavior. A classical STS theory paper may fit Science, Technology & Human Values or Social Studies of Science. A primarily technical AI paper may fit a computing venue. The Technology in Society record should make those alternatives look considered, not ignored.
These patterns are process-relevant because editors do not evaluate a manuscript as a private author intention. They see a generated record. If the record's components point in different directions, the triage decision becomes harder even when the topic is timely.
Named editorial failure patterns that stop Technology in Society submissions
Watch for these named process failures before uploading:
- Technology topic without society mechanism. The manuscript names a technology but does not show the social, economic, political, business, cultural, ethical, or institutional process being changed.
- Policy relevance without policy actor. The paper says the result matters for policy but does not name who can use it or what decision changes.
- Interdisciplinary evidence without evidence discipline. The methods combine fields without enough sampling, coding, model, corpus, ethics, or validity detail for reviewers to audit.
- Double-anonymized identity leak. The manuscript, acknowledgments, self-citations, data files, or supplementary material reveal author identity inside the reviewer-facing package.
- Wrong neighboring venue. The cover letter does not explain why Technology in Society fits better than Research Policy, TFSC, Computers in Human Behavior, AI and Society, or an STS theory journal.
Pattern | Where it shows in the record | Process consequence | Fix before upload |
|---|---|---|---|
Technology topic without society mechanism | Abstract, introduction, first figure, Highlights | Editor sees a technology-impact paper with weak society contribution | Rewrite the first screen around the social mechanism and affected actor |
Policy relevance without policy actor | Discussion, cover letter, implications section | Applied value reads generic | Name the regulator, organization, community, platform, design team, or institution that can act |
Interdisciplinary evidence without evidence discipline | Methods, figures, supplements, limitations | Reviewers cannot audit how evidence supports the claim | Add sampling, coding, model, corpus, validation, ethics, and limitation detail |
Double-anonymized identity leak | Manuscript file, acknowledgments, self-citations, data availability, supplements | Office return or reviewer-facing file problem | Move identity information to the title page and audit all files before upload |
Wrong neighboring venue | Cover letter, references, article framing | Editor sees a cleaner route through Research Policy, TFSC, CHB, AI and Society, or STS journals | Explain why the central claim is technology-society interaction rather than innovation policy, forecasting, HCI, AI, or STS theory alone |
Check whether your Technology in Society record shows the social mechanism →
Check whether your Technology in Society policy actor is specific enough →
Check whether your Technology in Society package is ready for double-anonymized review →
Final Decision: how to read each outcome
Technology in Society decisions are easier to interpret if you separate process, fit, method, policy relevance, and peer-review outcome.
Outcome | What it usually means | What to do next |
|---|---|---|
Administrative return | A file, declaration, anonymization, permission, reference, figure, ethics, data statement, or metadata issue needs correction | Fix the record quickly and resubmit the same target only if the scientific package is otherwise coherent |
Early editorial rejection | The editor did not see enough technology-society fit, social mechanism, decision relevance, or evidence discipline for review | Reassess venue before revising; the paper may need Research Policy, TFSC, Computers in Human Behavior, AI and Society, or a specialty outlet |
Sent to review | The editor saw a reviewable interdisciplinary contribution | Prepare for both method critique and claims about the strength of the technology-society mechanism |
Major revision | The contribution may be valuable but the evidence, actor, implication, or venue framing is not yet convincing | Rebuild the argument architecture and make the response letter map every reviewer concern to manuscript changes |
Reject after review | Reviewers or editor did not find the technology-society claim sufficiently supported, novel, actionable, or well routed | Preserve useful work, then retarget based on whether the paper is policy, forecasting, HCI, STS, management, or technical-computing dominant |
Accept or production path | The contribution and package cleared editorial and peer review | Audit proofs, data links, licensing, CRediT roles, conflicts, AI-use declaration, and supplementary files carefully |
The important distinction is between "fix the process record" and "change the paper." A missing anonymized file or disclosure is a process repair. A decision saying the manuscript lacks a technology-society mechanism is a manuscript-positioning problem.
Submit If
Submit to Technology in Society if:
- the abstract names a technology-society mechanism, not only a technology topic or impact claim
- the manuscript's figures or tables make the actor, institution, governance pathway, adoption process, equity issue, labor consequence, or design decision visible
- the methods can support the claimed social, ethical, policy, economic, business, or institutional conclusion
- the cover letter explains why Technology in Society is the right venue and why Research Policy, TFSC, Computers in Human Behavior, AI and Society, or an STS theory journal is not the better fit
- the references show command of the relevant technology studies, policy, management, information-systems, or social-science literature
- the anonymized manuscript, title page, declarations, data statement, and supplementary files are ready for double-anonymized review
Think Twice If
Hold the Technology in Society upload if:
- the abstract says a technology affects society but does not identify actors, institutions, social process, evidence base, or consequence
- the first figure or table mostly shows a technical model, platform architecture, adoption metric, or trend line without a social mechanism
- the methods section cannot support the governance, ethics, labor, inequality, adoption, policy, education, sustainability, or institutional claim
- the cover letter could be reused for Research Policy, TFSC, Computers in Human Behavior, AI and Society, Information and Management, or an STS journal with only the journal name changed
- the references are mostly technical or management literature and do not show the society, policy, governance, or STS conversation the manuscript joins
- the manuscript file still contains author-identifying acknowledgments, self-citation phrasing, data links, or supplementary metadata that weakens double-anonymized review
This guide tells you what Technology in Society editors look for during upload and triage; the review tells you whether YOUR paper passes that process screen before you submit. Paid Manusights reviews include a 60-day money-back guarantee, and we do not train models on submitted manuscripts.
How was this page checked?
Method note: we reviewed the official ScienceDirect Technology in Society journal page, ScienceDirect Guide for Authors, ScienceDirect Journal Insights page, the existing Manusights Technology in Society fit owner, and adjacent venue owners before creating this process page. Source limitation: ScienceDirect provides current journal-level timing and APC metrics, but it does not publish a stable desk-rejection rate by technology-policy or STS subfield.
The evidence basis is intentionally bounded. Official Elsevier materials establish the journal source, aims and scope, double-anonymized review model, online-submission route, author declarations, file expectations, and current timing insights. Manusights adds process interpretation from pre-submission review patterns: whether the generated record makes the society mechanism, policy actor, evidence discipline, anonymized-review readiness, cover letter, references, and venue choice obvious before the editor spends reviewer capacity.
Pros and cons: the main advantage of using this process page is that it turns upload preparation into an editorial-readiness check. The tradeoff is that it cannot replace the live Elsevier portal or guarantee a decision date. Use ScienceDirect for current mandatory fields and this page for the author-side judgment about whether the record tells the right technology-society story.
Last verified: July 17, 2026 against ScienceDirect and Editorial Manager source URLs.
Frequently asked questions
Technology in Society submissions use Elsevier Editorial Manager. Prepare the manuscript, title page, anonymized manuscript file, Highlights, declarations, data statement, cover letter, figures, tables, supplementary files, and suggested reviewers before opening the record.
ScienceDirect currently lists 9 days from submission to first decision, 79 days to a decision after review, 195 days from submission to acceptance, and 2 days from acceptance to online publication.
Yes. Elsevier's Technology in Society guide states that the journal follows a double anonymized review process, with initial editor assessment before suitable submissions are typically sent to at least two reviewers.
The main process risk is a complete upload that still reads as technology impact without a society mechanism, policy actor, or decision consequence. The record needs to make the technology-society contribution visible before triage.
Yes. The pre-upload fit page helps decide whether the manuscript belongs in Technology in Society. This page explains the Editorial Manager workflow and post-upload process after the author has chosen the journal.
Sources
Before you upload
Choose the next useful decision step first.
Move from this article into the next decision-support step. The scan works best once the journal and submission plan are clearer.
Use the scan once the manuscript and target journal are concrete enough to evaluate.
Anthropic Privacy Partner. Your manuscript is never used to train any model.