Future in Social Science is a double-blind peer-reviewed journal. Every paper submitted to the journal for publication undergoes a peer review process. The peer review in this journal involves evaluation by two or more individuals of similar competence to the author, ensuring the academic paper's suitability for publication. This method is crucial for maintaining high-quality standards and providing credibility to the papers. The peer review process at Future in Social Science follows 9 steps, described as follows:

1. Submission of Paper
   The corresponding or submitting author submits the paper to the journal via the online system supported by the Open Journal System (OJS). To assist authors, submissions by email are temporarily accepted.
2. Editorial Office Assessment
   The submitted paper is initially assessed by the editorial office. The editor checks whether the paper fits within the journal's focus and scope. The paper's composition and arrangement are evaluated against the journal's Author Guidelines to ensure the required sections and formatting are met. This step also includes an assessment of the paper's quality, particularly in terms of identifying major methodological flaws. Every submitted paper that passes this stage is checked by Turnitin to identify any plagiarism before being sent for peer review.
3. Appraisal by the Editor-in-Chief
   The Editor-in-Chief reviews the paper to ensure it is appropriate for the journal, original, interesting, and significant for publication. If the paper does not meet these criteria, it may be rejected without further review.
4. Invitation to Reviewers
   The handling editor sends invitations to appropriate individuals who are deemed suitable reviewers (referees), based on their expertise, research interests, and absence of conflicts of interest. The peer review process at Future in Social Science spans various disciplines, including Management, Economics, Culture, Law, Geography, and Education, involving experts within a narrowly defined field of Social Science. The double-blind peer review ensures impartiality—reviewers do not know the authors' identities, and authors do not know the reviewers' identities. The paper is sent to reviewers anonymously.
5. Response to Invitations
   Potential reviewers assess the invitation based on their expertise, availability, and any conflicts of interest, and then decide whether to accept or decline. The editor may ask for suggestions for alternative reviewers when a potential reviewer declines.
6. Review is Conducted
   Reviewers carefully read the paper multiple times. The initial reading provides an overall impression of the work. If major issues are identified, the reviewers may reject the paper at this stage. Otherwise, they will read the paper several more times, taking detailed notes to create a comprehensive point-by-point review. The review is then submitted to the journal with a recommendation to accept, reject, or request revisions (either major or minor) before further consideration.
7. Journal Evaluates the Reviews
   The Editor-in-Chief and handling editor review all the feedback provided by the reviewers before making a final decision. If there is a significant discrepancy between the reviews, an additional reviewer may be invited to provide a second opinion.
8. The Decision is Communicated
   The editor communicates the decision to the author via email, including relevant reviewer comments. Reviewer comments are sent anonymously, and the corresponding author is expected to address them accordingly. Reviewers also receive an update regarding the outcome of their review.
9. Final Steps
   If accepted, the paper proceeds to copy-editing. If the article is rejected or returned to the author for revisions, the handling editor provides constructive feedback to assist in improving the paper. The author should make corrections based on the reviewers' suggestions and resubmit the revised paper.

After revision, the author submits the updated paper to the editor. If the paper has undergone only minor revisions, the handling editor may review it, but if major changes are requested, the paper may be sent back to the original reviewers for re-evaluation.

If the revised paper meets the editor's standards, it is accepted for publication. Leveraging feedback from the peer review process, the editor makes the final publication decision. The entire review process typically takes about 2 to 4 weeks. Accepted papers are published online and are freely available as downloadable PDF files.