JCEA Editorial process
JCEA operates a rigorous peer-review process. In most cases this is a single-blind assessment with at least two independent reviewers, followed by a final acceptance/rejection decision by the Editor-in-Chief, or another academic editor approved by the Editor-in-Chief.
A summary of the editorial process is given in the flow charts below. The following provides notes on each step.
Immediately after submission, this check is initially carried out by the managing editor to assess:
Suitability of the manuscript to the journal/section/special issue;
Qualification and background of authors;
Reject obviously poor manuscripts.
The Academic Editor, i.e., the Editor-in-Chief in the case of regular submissions, or the Guest Editor in the case of Special Issue submissions, or an Editorial Board Member in case of a conflict of interest, will be notified of the submission and invited to check and recommend reviewers.
The process is single-blind for most journals, meaning that the author does not know the identity of the reviewer, but the reviewer knows the identity of the author. Some journals operate double-blind peer review and/or open peer review process.
At least two review reports are collected for each submitted article. Suggestions of reviewers can be made by the academic editor during pre-check. Alternatively, JCEA editorial staff will use qualified Editorial Board Members, qualified reviewers from our database, or new reviewers identified by web searches for related articles.
The following checks are applied to all reviewers:
That they hold no conflicts of interest with the authors, including if they have published together in the last five years;
That they hold a PhD (exceptions are made in some fields, e.g. medicine);
They must have recent publications in the field of the submitted paper;
They have not recently been invited to review a manuscript for any JCEA journal.
To assist academic editors, JCEA staff handle all communication with reviewers, authors, and the external editor; however, Academic Editors can check the status of manuscripts and the identity of reviewers at any time. Reviewers are given two weeks to write their review. For the review of a revised manuscript, reviewers are asked to provide their report within three days. In both cases, extensions can be granted on request.
When making an editorial decision, we expect that the academic editor checks the following:
The suitability of selected reviewers;
Adequacy of reviewer comments and author response;
Overall scientific quality of the paper.
The editor can select from: accept, reject, ask author for revision, ask for an additional reviewer.
If there is any suspicion that a paper may contain plagiarism, the editorial office will check using the industry standard iThenticate software. Reviewers make recommendations, and Editors-in-Chief are free to disagree with their views. If they do so, they should justify their decision, for the benefit of the authors.
In cases where only minor revisions are recommended, the author is usually requested to revise the paper before referring to the external editor. Articles may or may not be sent to reviewers after author revision, dependent on whether the reviewer requested to see the revised version and the wishes of the Academic editor. Apart from in exceptional circumstances, we allow a maximum of two rounds of major revision per manuscript.
JCEA carries out production on all manuscripts, including language editing, copy editing and conversion to XML. Language editing is carried out by professional English editing staff. In the small number of cases where extensive editing or formatting is required, we charge authors an additional fee (with authors’ prior approval). The authors are also free to use other English editing service, or consult a native English-speaking colleague—the latter being our preferred option.
role of the editor-in-chief
The Editor-in-Chief is responsible for the academic quality of the publication process. This includes making final decisions on manuscripts, or approving scholars to whom the decision can be delegated. The Editor-in-Chief also approves new Editorial Board members.
JCEA is a member of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and follows its procedures for dealing with potentially unethical behaviour by authors, reviewers or editors.
publishing standards and guidelines
JCEA follow the following guidelines and standards. The guidelines comprehensively cover all aspects of editing, from how the journal is managed to details about peer review and handling complaints. The CONSORT statement covers reporting of randomized, controlled trials. We encourage authors to verify their work against the checklist and flow diagram and upload them with their submission. TOP covers transparency and openness in the reporting of research. JCEA aims to be at level 1 or 2 for all aspects of TOP.
ACOMS covers systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Authors are recommended to complete the checklist and flow the procedure and include it with their submission. Also, authors are recommended to verify their work against the checklist and include it with their submission.
Compliance with the standards and guidelines above will be taken into account during the final decision and any discrepancies should be clearly explained by the authors. We recommend that authors highlight relevant guidelines in their cover letter.