You are here

PLEASE NOTE: Sage Distribution including Books Customer Services will be closed for a stocktake from 29th November to 1st December. Any orders placed during this period will be dealt with as normal when service resumes on 4th December. Thank you for your patience and we apologise for any inconvenience caused.

Collective Intelligence

Collective Intelligence

With the collaboration of Nesta

eISSN: 26339137 | ISSN: 26339137 | Current volume: 2 | Current issue: 3 Frequency: Quarterly

Collective Intelligence, co-published by SAGE and the Association for Computing Machinery (ACM), with the collaboration of Nesta's Centre for Collective Intelligence Design, is a global, peer-reviewed, open-access journal that publishes trans-disciplinary work bearing on collective intelligence across the disciplines. The journal embraces a policy of creative rigor in the study of collective intelligence to facilitate the discovery of principles that apply across scales and new ways of harnessing the collective to improve social, ecological, and economic outcomes. In that spirit, the journal encourages a broad-minded approach to collective performance. We welcome perspectives that emphasize traditional views of intelligence as well as optimality, satisficing, robustness, adaptability, and wisdom. In more technical terms, this includes issues related to collective output quality and assessment, aggregation of information and related topics (e.g., network structure and dynamics, higher-order vs. pairwise interactions, spatial and temporal synchronization, diversity, etc.), accumulation of information by individuals/components, environmental complexity, evolutionary considerations, and design of systems and platforms fostering collective intelligence.


Collective Intelligence is a transdisciplinary journal devoted to advancing the theoretical and empirical understanding of collective performance in diverse systems, including human organizations, hybrid AI-human teams, computer networks, adaptive matter, cellular systems, neural circuits, animal societies, nanobot swarms, and others. The journal embraces a policy of creative rigor in the study of collective intelligence to facilitate the discovery of principles that apply across scales and new ways of harnessing the collective to improve social, ecological, and economic outcomes. In that spirit, the journal encourages a broad-minded approach to collective performance. We welcome perspectives that emphasize traditional views of intelligence as well as optimality, satisficing, robustness, adaptability, and wisdom.

In more technical terms, this includes issues related to collective output quality and assessment, aggregation of information and related topics (e.g., network structure and dynamics, higher-order vs. pairwise interactions, spatial and temporal synchronization, diversity, etc.), accumulation of information by individuals/components, environmental complexity, evolutionary considerations, and design of systems and platforms fostering collective intelligence.


The Internet and other digital technologies have given the world powerful new means to harness collective intelligence at a time when it has never been more needed, not least to address unprecedented challenges such as climate change, pandemics, and inequality. But our understanding of how collective intelligence works, particularly at a large scale - whether in biology, social contexts, or computing - remains nascent. This journal will bring together the various communities and disciplines working on collective intelligence to advance our understanding of its foundations and equip us better to put its principles into practice.

Geoff Mulgan University College London, UK
Scott Page University of Michigan, USA
Founding Editor & Chair of the Steering Committee
Thomas W. Malone Massachusetts Institute of Technology, USA
Founding Associate Editors
Andrew Adamatzky UWE Bristol, UK
Danielle Bassett University of Pennsylvania, USA
Michael Bernstein Stanford University, USA
Jeffrey Bigham Carnegie Mellon University, USA
Iain D. Couzin Max Planck Institute of Animal Behavior and University of Konnstance, Germany
James Evans The University of Chicago, USA
Deborah M. Gordon Stanford University, USA
Calin C. Guet Institute of Science and Technology, Austria
Vishwesha Guttal Indian Insitute of Science, India
David Ha Google Brain, Japan
Sabine Hauert University of Bristol, UK
César A. Hidalgo ANITI, France, University of Manchester, UK, Harvard University, USA
John Krakauer Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine and The Santa Fe Institute, USA
Karim R. Lakhani Harvard Busines School, Laboratory for Innovation Science at Harvard, USA
Naomi Ehrich Leonard Princeton University, USA
Michael Levin Allen Discovery Center at Tufts University, USA
Simon Levin Princeton University, USA
Pierre Levy University of Montréal and INTLEKT Metadata, Inc., Canada
Hernan Makse Levich Institute and Physics Department, City College of New York, USA
Barbara Mellers University of Pennsylvania, USA
Melanie Mitchell Santa Fe Institute, USA
Beth Noveck The Governance Lab and NYU Tandon School of Engineering , USA
Annie Murphy Paul Science journalist and fellow in New America’s Learning Sciences Exchange, USA
Orit Peleg University of Colorado Boulder, USA
David Pennock Rutgers School of Arts and Sciences, USA
Jill Perry-Smith Goizueta Business School, Emory University, USA
Iqbal Quadir Belfer Center, Harvard KS, USA
Iyad Rahwan Max-Planck Institute for Human Development, Germany
Dana Randall Georgia Institute of Technology, USA
Lionel P. Robert Jr. University of Michigan, USA
Daniel N. Rockmore Dartmouth College, USA
Ville Satopää INSEAD, USA
Rajiv Sethi Columbia University, USA
Guy Theraulaz Centre de Recherches sur la Cognition Animale, Centre de Biologie Intégrative, Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Université de Toulouse—Paul Sabatier, France
Elke U. Weber Princeton University, USA
Thalia Wheatley Dartmouth College, USA
Anita Williams Woolley Carnegie Mellon University, USA

Manuscript Submission Guidelines: Collective Intelligence

Please read the guidelines below, then visit the Collective Intelligence submission site to upload your manuscript. Please note that manuscripts not conforming to these guidelines may be returned. Remember, you can log in to the submission site at any time to check on the progress of your paper through the peer-review process.

Sage Publishing and ACM are committed to diversity and inclusion in publishing. We encourage submissions from a range of authors from across all countries, genders, and backgrounds.

We want to avoid overloading reviewers with peer review requests. Therefore, we send for review only manuscripts of sufficient quality that meet the aims and scope of Collective Intelligence.

There is no charge for submitting a paper to the journal                

As part of the submission process, you will be required to:

  • submit your original work,
  • have the rights in the submitted work,
  • have obtained and can supply all necessary permissions for the reproduction of any copyrighted works,
  • submit the work for first publication in Collective Intelligence,
  • warrant that it is not being considered for publication elsewhere and has not already been published elsewhere.

Please see our guidelines on prior publication and note that Collective Intelligence will consider submissions of papers that have been posted on preprint servers or in computer science conference proceedings. Please alert the Editorial Office when submitting and include the DOI for the preprint in the designated field in the manuscript submission system. Authors should not post an updated version of their paper on the preprint server while it is being peer reviewed for possible publication in Collective Intelligence. If the article is accepted for publication, the author may re-use their work according to Collective Intelligence’s author archiving policy.

If your paper is accepted, you must include a link on your preprint to the final version of your paper.

If you have any questions about publishing with Sage and ACM, please visit the Sage Journal Solutions Portal and review the ACM Publication Policies and Procedures.


  1. Open Access and Article processing charge (APC)
  2. What do we publish?
    2.1 Aims & Scope
    2.2 Article types
    2.3 Writing your paper
  3. Editorial policies
    3.1 Peer review policy
    3.2 Authorship
    3.3 Acknowledgements
    3.4 Funding
    3.5 Declaration of conflicting interests
    3.6 Research ethics and patient consent
    3.7 Research Data and Code
  4. Publishing policies
    4.1 Publication ethics
  5. Preparing your manuscript
    5.1 Formatting
    5.2 Artwork, figures and other graphics
    5.3 Supplemental material
    5.4 Reference style
    5.5 English language editing services
  6. Submitting your manuscript
    6.1 ORCID
    6.2 Information required for completing your submission
    6.3 Permissions
  7. On acceptance and publication
    7.1 Production
    7.2 Promoting your article
  8. Further information
    8.1 Appealing the publication decision


1. Open Access and Article processing charge (APC)

Collective Intelligence is an open-access, peer-reviewed journal. Each article accepted by peer review is made freely available online immediately upon publication, is published under a Creative Commons license, and will be hosted online in perpetuity.

Nesta is sponsoring the Article Processing Charges (APCs) for the Journal in its launch year. As a result, the APCs for this Journal are currently waived for the first year of publication. In the future, if, after peer review, your manuscript is accepted for publication, a one-time APC is payable after peer review and prior to publication. This APC covers the cost of publication and ensures that your article will be freely available online in perpetuity under a Creative Commons license. For general information on open access at Sage please visit the Open Access page or view our Open Access FAQs.

2. What do we publish?

2.1 Aims & Scope

Collective Intelligence is a transdisciplinary journal devoted to advancing the theoretical and empirical understanding of collective performance in diverse systems, including human organizations, hybrid AI-human teams, computer networks, adaptive matter, cellular systems, neural circuits, animal societies, nanobot swarms, and others. The journal embraces a policy of creative rigor in the study of collective intelligence to facilitate the discovery of principles that apply across scales and new ways of harnessing the collective to improve social, ecological, and economic outcomes. In that spirit, the journal encourages a broad-minded approach to collective performance. We welcome perspectives that emphasize traditional views of intelligence as well as optimality, satisficing, robustness, adaptability, and wisdom.

In more technical terms, this includes issues related to collective output quality and assessment, aggregation of information and related topics (e.g., network structure and dynamics, higher-order vs. pairwise interactions, spatial and temporal synchronization, diversity, etc.), accumulation of information by individuals/components, environmental complexity, evolutionary considerations, and design of systems and platforms fostering collective

2.2 Article Types

Research Articles (no word count but < 6000 words recommended)

Research Articles include conventional theory, computational, and empirical/experimental reports on novel research not published elsewhere. Criteria for evaluation include impact, novelty, creativity, technical soundness, and applicability to collective intelligence.

In addition to the standard abstract (250 words), introduction, methods, results, discussion, and appendix sections (as appropriate by paper), authors should include a 250-word significance statement that puts the conclusion of the paper in broad, accessible terms and states the relevance to basic science and/or applied settings.

Theory and modeling papers should include a table in which constraints (e.g., exponents in scaling models derived from first principles) and parameters fit to data or tuned, are defined, and an accessible interpretation and justification given. For example, Einstein's field equations to make accurate predictions in our universe need to fix things like light speed and the gravitational constant.

For replications of previously published work in CI or elsewhere, whether theory papers or experiments, authors should include a table listing all important similarities and differences in design or model and results between the current replication and the previous work.

Appendices will be reviewed and published as part of the main paper and should include details critical to replicating an experiment or model but which otherwise distract from the main text. Appendices can include a section at the end for supplementary information that is not critical to the paper but might be useful for future work.

If you wish to apply for Open Data/Open Materials OSF badges, please ensure you mention this in your cover letter, complete the disclosure form and include it with your submission. Any required data/materials should be hosted on a publically-accessible website in a format that is time-stamped, immutable, and permanent. For more information about the badges and how to earn them, please see the OSF Wiki.

Note that for regular articles, Collective Intelligence only offers Open Data and Open Materials badges. Preregistration badges are currently for Registered Reports only. Please refer to the more detailed Registered Report guidelines below.

Pre-registration studies: Collective Intelligence encourages pre-registration of analyses for studies that build closely on an existing body of work, and for fields with a respective tradition, as is often the case in the biomedical and cognitive sciences. Pre-registration will not be required for empirical/experimental papers that test novel ideas or introduce fundamentally new methods.

These submissions are reviewed in two stages. In Stage 1, a study proposal is considered for publication prior to data collection. Stage 1 submissions should include the complete Introduction, Method, and Proposed Analyses. High-quality proposals will be accepted in principle before data collection commences. Once the study is completed, the author will finish the article including Results and Discussion sections (Stage 2). Publication of Stage 2 submissions is guaranteed as long as the approved Stage 1 protocol is followed and conclusions are appropriate. Full details can be found here.  

Reviews, Synthesis, Perspectives, and Comments

A Review is a comprehensive, ideally "objective" (as opposed to advancing one's own view) evidence-based summary of the literature on a given topic. It should conclude with the consensus view and suggest directions for future research. No word count, but < 8,000 words is recommended.

Syntheses concretely formulate new hypotheses and frameworks by bringing together approaches and results from different sub-disciplines within the broadly conceived collective intelligence community. No word count, but < 4000 words is recommended.

Perspectives build a case for promising but speculative directions within basic science for future work or introduce out of the box ideas. Ideally, a Perspective is pithy and short. No word count but < 2000 words is recommended.

Comments are constructive remarks on previously published papers. A comment might suggest a new direction, improve a method, propose an alternative interpretation of the data or results, or put another author's results in a larger context. No word count but < 2000 is words recommended.

Case Studies

Case Studies report implementations of collective intelligence in practice. Case studies should identify the principles, questions, or problems the authors are studying in practice and describe the context in which the study occurred (e.g., crowdsourced project, portfolio management team, etc.). Case studies should also use language accessible to a general audience, explain how and why the case addresses issues relevant to applied and/or basic scientists, and offer clear takeaways for the reader. For example: Did the case study illustrate how to improve team performance, increase robustness, or produce more accurate information? What were the important design decisions and tradeoffs? What was learned after the project implementation that was not anticipated beforehand? What are the implications of those insights for basic science? The discussion should have sufficient depth to allow replication of the challenges and allow other researchers to build on top of these observations.

Given the differences in form and audience, our criteria for evaluating case studies differ from those for research articles, reviews, and syntheses. Reviewers and editors will evaluate case studies based on potential impact to science and society, general interest, the novelty of application, and whether the domain and application are compelling. Results need not be positive. We will treat failures to achieve collective intelligence with the same openness and rigor that we consider successes. We will impose no word count but recommend articles with fewer than 3000. We encourage the inclusion of appendices that describe process and methods in more detail, including findings of scientific interest that might not fit within the general thread of the case. Case studies will have three reviewers—when possible, two from the applied side and one who sits between practice and basic science.


Challenges are speculative essays that identify either ideas from basic science that would benefit from being tested in practice, identify ideas implemented in practice that need a firmer scientific foundation, or identify points of conflict between the science and applied communities. No word count, but < 1000 words is recommended.

Book Reviews & Conference Reports (typically solicited by the editors).


Debates aim to find common ground and identify new directions and profitable intersections by bringing together two to three researchers or teams with different perspectives, who work on similar problems but at different scales (e.g. neural vs human social systems), or who have drawn different conclusions. The format of a collective debate is a series of 1000 to 2000 word "letters" with two to three iterations by each debate contributor.

A Debate is published in its entirety. Upon publication, the debate is opened to the community, and individuals or teams can submit one-page responses to be considered for publication as part of the debate. The tone of the debate contributions should be constructive.

Essays and Creative Writing Contributions

Essays and Creative Writing Contributions can be nonfiction, fiction, poetry, or other kinds of creative writing. With this, the journal aims to provide a place for social commentary and creative work, the latter constrained only by the imagination of the author and the subject of the journal. To that end, fiction essays should creatively explore the notion as well as implications and effects of collective intelligence. Nonfiction essays explore the implications of collective intelligence historically or in contemporary society. These essays should be between 3000 and 7000 words. They will be handled by CI’s creative writing editor.

2.3 Writing your paper

The Sage Author Gateway has some general advice and on how to get published, plus links to further resources. Sage Author Services also offers authors a variety of ways to improve and enhance their article including English language editing, plagiarism detection, and video abstract and infographic preparation.

2.3.1 Make your article discoverable

For information and guidance on how to make your article more discoverable, visit our Gateway page on How to Help Readers Find Your Article Online.

Back to top

3. Editorial policies

3.1 Peer review policy

Collective Intelligence adheres to a rigorous single-anonymize reviewing policy in which the identity of the reviewer is anonymous. Three reviews will be obtained for each manuscript sent for review.

Collective Intelligence is committed to delivering high-quality, fast peer-review for your paper, and as such, has partnered with Publons. Publons is a third-party service that seeks to track, verify, and give credit for peer review. Reviewers for Collective Intelligence can opt-in to Publons to claim their reviews or have them automatically verified and added to their reviewer profile. Reviewers claiming credit for their review will be associated with the relevant journal, but the article name, reviewer's decision, and the content of their review is not published on the Publons site. For more information, visit the Publons website.

The Editors or members of the Editorial Board may occasionally submit their own manuscripts for possible publication in Collective Intelligence. In these cases, the peer review process will be managed by alternative members of the Board, and the submitting Editor/Board member will have no involvement in the decision-making process. 

3.1.1 Reviewing Philosophy

Collective Intelligence is a transdisciplinary journal that publishes research articles, reviews, syntheses, comments, case studies, debates, and long form fiction and nonfiction essays. This statement concerns all of these paper types except long form essays and debates, which are invited and reviewed respectively by the Journal’s long form essay editor and chief editors. Due to both the transdisciplinary nature of the Journal as well as the Journal’s goal of facilitating discovery of collective intelligence principles that apply across scales, careful attention needs to be given to the Journal’s reviewing philosophy. Collective Intelligence consequently seeks broad-minded reviewers who are able to review outside their apparent domain of expertise as well as technically proficient reviewers. Please keep this in mind when considering this invitation and reviewing the work. Specific evaluation criteria for each paper type can be found via the link in point 5. In brief, the chief editors ask that reviewers follow these guidelines:

  • CI encourages reviewers to suggest literatures to authors in which related points to the authors’ have been made. Reviewers are also encouraged to suggest related terminology.
  • CI encourages reviewers to take into account the accessibility of language and make suggestions as appropriate.
  • CI encourages reviewers to make suggestions to the authors to improve the generality of the paper to increase readership and impact.
  • For theory and modelling papers, CI requires authors to include a table identifying and defining constraints and/or parameters in models. This table should be carefully reviewed for rigor and clarity.
  • For information about code deposition and what material should be included in the main paper verses an appendix, please see point 3.7 Research data and Code.
  • Finally, reviews should always be constructive!

3.2 Authorship

Papers should only be submitted for consideration once consent is given by all contributing authors. Those submitting papers should carefully check that all those whose work contributed to the paper are acknowledged as contributing authors. Upon submission, all authors will be notified their MS has entered the system.

The list of authors should include all those who can legitimately claim authorship. This list includes all those who:

  1. Made a substantial contribution to the concept or design of the work; or acquisition, analysis or interpretation of data,
  2. Drafted the article or revised it critically for important intellectual content,
  3. Approved the version to be published,
  4. Each author should have participated sufficiently in the work to take public responsibility for appropriate portions of the content.

The authors should meet the conditions of all of the points above. When a large, multicentre group has conducted the work, the group should identify the individuals who accept direct responsibility for the manuscript. These individuals should fully meet the criteria for authorship.

Acquisition of funding, collection of data, or general supervision of the research group alone does not constitute authorship. However, all contributors who do not meet the criteria for authorship should be listed in the Acknowledgments section. Please refer to the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) authorship guidelines for more information on authorship.

All parties who have made a substantive contribution to the article should be listed as authors. Principal authorship, authorship order, and other publication credits should be based on the relative scientific or professional contributions of the individuals involved, regardless of their status. A student is usually listed as the principal author on any multiple-authored publication that substantially derives from the student's dissertation or thesis.

The authors should specify contributions to the manuscript in the "Contributions" section at the end of the paper.

Please note that AI chatbots, for example ChatGPT, should not be listed as authors. For more information see the policy on Use of ChatGPT and generative AI tools.

3.3 Acknowledgements

All contributors who do not meet the criteria for authorship should be listed in an Acknowledgements section. Examples of those who might be acknowledged include a person who provided purely technical help, a department chair who provided only general support. Acknowledgments are an opportunity for intellectual generosity. 

3.3.1 Third-party submissions

When an individual who is not listed as an author submits a manuscript on behalf of the author(s), a statement must be included in the Acknowledgements section of the manuscript and in the accompanying cover letter. The statements must:

  • Disclose this type of editorial assistance – including the individual's name, company, and level of input
  • Identify any entities that paid for this assistance
  • Confirm that the listed authors have authorized the submission of their manuscript via a third party and approved any statements or declarations, e.g., conflicting interests, funding, etc.

Where appropriate, Sage and ACM reserve the right to deny consideration to manuscripts submitted by a third party rather than by the authors themselves.

3.3.2 Third-party submissions

Individuals who provided writing assistance, e.g., from a specialist communications company, do not qualify as authors and should be included in the Acknowledgements section. Authors must disclose any writing assistance – including the individual's name, company, and level of input – and identify the entity that paid for this assistance. It is not necessary to disclose the use of language polishing services.

3.4 Funding

Collective Intelligence requires all authors to acknowledge their funding in a consistent fashion under a separate heading.  Please visit the Funding Acknowledgements page on the Sage Journal Author Gateway to confirm the format of the acknowledgment text in the event of funding, or state that: This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors. 

3.5 Declaration of conflicting interests

Collective Intelligence encourages authors to include a declaration of any conflicting interests and recommends you review the good practice guidelines on the Sage Journal Author Gateway.  This is especially important for case studies and / or individuals who work in both the applied and basic science settings.

3.6 Research ethics and patient consent

Medical research involving human subjects must be conducted according to the World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki.

Submitted manuscripts should conform to the ICMJE Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing, and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals, and all papers reporting animal and/or human studies must state in the methods section that the relevant ethics committee or institutional review board provided (or waived) approval. Please ensure that you have provided the full name and institution of the review committee, in addition to the approval number.

For research articles, authors are also required to state in the methods section, whether participants provided informed consent and whether the consent was written or verbal.

Information on informed consent to report individual cases or case series should be included in the manuscript text. A statement is required regarding whether written informed consent for patient information and images to be published was provided by the patient(s) or a legally authorized representative. Please do not submit the patient's actual written informed consent with your article, as this in itself breaches the patient's confidentiality. Collective Intelligence requests that you confirm to us, in writing, that you have obtained written informed consent, but the written consent itself should be held by the authors/investigators themselves, for example, in a patient's hospital record. The confirmatory letter may be uploaded with your submission as a separate file.

Please also refer to the ICMJE Recommendations for the Protection of Research Participants.

All research involving animals submitted for publication must be approved by an ethics committee with oversight of the facility in which the studies were conducted. The Journal has adopted the ARRIVE guidelines.

3.7 Research data and Code

Sage and ACM are committed to facilitating openness, transparency, and reproducibility of research. Where relevant, Collective Intelligence encourages authors to share their research data and code in a suitable public repository subject to ethical considerations and where data is included to add a data accessibility statement in their manuscript file. The authors should also follow data citation principles. For more information, please visit the Sage Author Gateway, which includes information about Sage's partnership with the data repository Figshare. Please note that authors may use other data repositories of their choosing.

Back to top

4. Publishing Policies

4.1 Publication ethics

Sage and ACM are committed to upholding the integrity of the academic record. We encourage authors to refer to the Committee on Publication Ethics' International Standards for Authors and view the Sage publication policies and ACM publications policies.

4.1.1 Plagiarism

Collective Intelligence, Sage and ACM take issues of copyright infringement, plagiarism or other breaches of best practice in publication very seriously. We seek to protect the rights of our authors and we always investigate claims of plagiarism or misuse of published articles. Equally, we seek to protect the reputation of Collective Intelligence against malpractice. Submitted articles might be checked with duplication-checking software. When an article, for example, is found to have plagiarized other work or included third-party copyright material without permission or with insufficient acknowledgement, or when the authorship of the article is contested, we reserve the right to take action including, but not limited to: publishing an erratum or corrigendum (correction); retracting the article; taking up the matter with the head of department or dean of the author's institution and/or relevant academic bodies or societies; or taking appropriate legal action

4.1.2 Prior publication

If material has been previously published it is not generally acceptable for publication in Collective Intelligence. However, there are certain circumstances where previously published material can be considered for publication.

Manuscripts based on papers that have been presented at conferences or published in conference proceedings may be considered for publication provided that that the following conditions are met: 1) previous work: you must still retain the rights to the manuscript, 2) the new work is substantially developed and contains at least 25% new material (in general terms), and 3) you must incorporate a citation to the previous work

Please contact the Editor at the address given below if you have questions about prior publication.

Back to top

5 Preparing your manuscript for submission

        5.1 Formatting

        Preferred formats for your manuscript are Word and LaTeX. A LaTeX template is available on the Manuscript Submission Guidelines page of our              Author Gateway. You may also use the latest version of the ACM Primary Article Template (found here). Please note that any LaTeX submissions              will be reformatted to conform to the publication style of the journal.


5.2 Artwork, figures and other graphics

For guidance on the preparation of illustrations, pictures and graphs in electronic format, please visit Sage's Manuscript Submission Guidelines.

5.3 Supplemental material

This journal is able to host additional materials online (e.g. datasets, podcasts, videos, images etc.) alongside the full-text of the article. For more information please refer to our guidelines on submitting supplemental files.

5.4 Reference style

Collective Intelligence adheres to the APA reference style. View the APA guidelines to ensure your manuscript conforms to this reference style.

If you use EndNote to manage references, you can download the APA output file.

5.5 English language editing services

Authors seeking assistance with English language editing, translation, or figure and manuscript formatting to fit Collective Intelligence's specifications should consider using Sage Language Services or International Science Editing.

Back to top

6. Submitting your manuscript

Collective Intelligence is hosted on Sage Track, a web-based online submission and peer review system powered by ScholarOne™ Manuscripts. Visit to login and submit your article online.

IMPORTANT: Please check whether you already have an account in the system before trying to create a new one. If you have reviewed or authored for Collective Intelligence in the past year it is likely that you will have had an account created.  For further guidance on submitting your manuscript online, please visit ScholarOne Online Help.



As part of our commitment to ensuring an ethical, transparent, and fair peer-review process, Sage and ACM are supporting members of ORCID, the Open Researcher and Contributor ID. ORCID provides a unique and persistent digital identifier that distinguishes researchers from every other researcher, even those who share the same name, and, through integration in key research workflows such as manuscript and grant submission, supports automated linkages between researchers and their professional activities, ensuring that their work is recognized.

The collection of ORCID IDs from corresponding authors is now part of the submission process of this journal. If you already have an ORCID ID, you will be asked to associate that to your submission during the online submission process. We also strongly encourage all co-authors to link their ORCID ID to their accounts in our online peer review platforms. It takes seconds to do: click the link when prompted, sign into your ORCID account and our systems are automatically updated. We collect ORCID IDs during the manuscript submission process and your ORCID ID then becomes part of your accepted publication's metadata, making your work attributable to you and only you. Your ORCID ID is published with your article so that fellow researchers reading your work can link to your ORCID profile and from there link to your other publications.

If you do not already have an ORCID ID please follow this link to create one or visit our ORCID homepage to learn more.

6.2 Information required for completing your submission

You will be asked to provide contact details and academic affiliations for all co-authors via the submission system and identify who is to be the corresponding author. These details must match what appears on your manuscript. The affiliation listed in the manuscript should be the institution where the research was conducted. If an author has moved to a new institution since completing the research, the new affiliation can be included in a manuscript note at the end of the paper. At this stage please ensure you have included all the required statements and declarations and uploaded any additional supplementary files (including reporting guidelines where relevant).

6.3 Permissions

Please also ensure that you have obtained any necessary permission from copyright holders for reproducing any illustrations, tables, figures or lengthy quotations previously published elsewhere. For further information, including guidance on fair dealing for criticism and review, please see the Copyright and Permissions page on the Sage Author Gateway.

Back to top

7. On acceptance and publication

7.1 Production

We will keep you informed as to your article's progress throughout the production process. Proofs will be made available to the corresponding author via our editing portal Sage Edit or by email, and corrections should be made directly or notified to us promptly. Authors are reminded to check their proofs carefully to confirm that all author information, including names, affiliations, sequence and contact details are correct, and that Funding and Conflict of Interest statements, if any, are accurate. Please note that if there are any changes to the author list at this stage all authors will be required to complete and sign a form authorising the change and the change will need to be approved by the journal Editors.

7.2 Promoting your article

Publication is not the end of the process! You can help disseminate your paper and ensure it is as widely read and cited as possible. The Sage Author Gateway has numerous resources to help you promote your work. Visit the Promote Your Article page on the Gateway for tips and advice.

Back to top

8. Further information

Any correspondence, queries or additional requests for information on the manuscript submission process should be sent to the Collective Intelligence editorial office as follows:

Allison Templet

8.1 Appealing the publication decision

Editors have very broad discretion in determining whether an article is an appropriate fit for their journal. Many manuscripts are declined with a very general statement of the rejection decision. These decisions are not eligible for formal appeal unless the author believes the decision to reject the manuscript was based on an error in the review of the article, in which case the author may appeal the decision by providing the Editor with a detailed written description of the error they believe occurred.

If an author believes the decision regarding their manuscript was affected by a publication ethics breach, the author may contact the publisher with a detailed written description of their concern, and information supporting the concern, at,