Peer-Review policy

The general characteristics of the journal’s peer-review process

Identity transparency: Double anonymised peer review. Reviewer identity is not made visible to author, author identity is not made visible to reviewer, reviewer and author identity is visible to (decision-making) editor.
Reviewers interact with the editors.
Review information is not published.

JCEEAS follow Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) guidelines on appeals to journal editor decisions and complaints about a journal’s editorial management of the peer review process.

Review procedure

  1. Author Submission: The author(s) submit their manuscript to the journal without any identifying information. Authors must remove explicit indications of the authors’ names and institutions from the text and the file metadata, as well as all acknowledgements. (Author names, institutions, and acknowledgements will be returned to the printed manuscript upon acceptance for publication.) The paper should be written in such a way that it does not reveal the author’s identity.
  2.  Authors should not refer to their previous work in a way that would identify them to the reviewers: If self-citation is necessary, it should be done in the third person, or in some cases, authors can cite their own work by replacing their name with "Author" in the citation (revealing their identity only in post-review phase).
  3. Initial screening: The journal editor-in-chief and/or an associate editor conducts an initial review to ensure the manuscript fits the journal's scope and meets basic quality standards and formal requirements. Manuscripts that pass this screening are then assigned to associate editors based on their field of expertise.
  4. External review: all the papers are evaluated by at least two independent reviewers, who are experts on the subject concerned. It is up to the responsible associate editor to choose and invite the reviewers. The evaluation is carried out in accordance with the principle of double anonymity of the reviewer and the author of the article (Double anonymised peer review). Authors are not asked to recommend reviewers. Reviews or reviewer identities are not posted with articles.Reviewers will be asked to complete their review within two weeks, but are allowed to extend the review period in order to complete and submit their report. 

    Supplementary material can be shared with reviewers during the review process based on the editor’s decision.
    Reviewers provide a detailed free text review for the authors, remarks to the editors (not mandatory) and a condensed evaluation on the following characteristics on a four-grade scale:
    • Relevance of the topic
    • Quality of the literature review
    • Methodology
    • Relevance and expected outcome of the article
    • Accuracy, clarity, structure of the paper
  1. Editor’s decision: Based on the reviews the dedicated associate editor decides on the manuscript, which can be a request for minor or major revisions, a recommendation for resubmission here or elsewhere or a rejection. In case of any doubt the associate editor may involve the editor-in-chief in decision-making, or if it is related to a broader issue, than ask the opinion of the team of associate editors.
    The editor communicates the decision to the author(s), including the anonymous reviewers' comments to help the author(s) understand the reasons behind the decision and any required changes.
  2. Revisions: If revisions are requested, the author(s) revise the manuscript and resubmit it. The revised manuscript may be sent back to the original reviewers for a second round of review or to new reviewers, depending on the associate editor’s decision. Several rounds of revisions may be requested from the Authors.
  3. Final decision: After the review and revision process, the responsible associate editor makes a final decision on the manuscript (see also step 4). If accepted, the manuscript moves forward to the publication process. The final decision is communicated to the author(s).

Special issues articles are subject to the same peer review process, curated by a designated associate editor or guest editor who is a renowned expert of the field.