Manuscript Review Policy
The journal receives far more manuscripts than it is able to publish. Moreover, many submissions do not meet the aims and scope of JCAL or conform to the various guidelines suggested to authors (as available elsewhere on this site). In common with other leading journals, JCAL adopts a two stage review process, the first part of which is designed to be quick and, therefore, receptive to the needs of authors to move their manuscript forward if it does not happen to fit the publishing niche offered by JCAL
1) Triage stage of review
All manuscripts are first read by the Editor. If the Editor has doubts that a manuscript would receive a favourable review, the Deputy Editor (or a member of the Editorial Board with relevant expertise) is asked to read the work. If they both agree that the paper does not fit the concerns of the journal, or that reviewers are unlikely to recommend publication, then authors are informed that the manuscript can not be accepted for publication. Every effort is made to do this quickly - typically within two weeks of manuscript receipt. For quality assurance purposes, each year, at least one member of the Board is asked to scrutinise the manuscripts rejected in this way and provide a commentary on the decisions made at this triage stage. This feedback is taken into account in shaping future reviews at this stage.
At present, more than half of papers submitted are not passed forward to the seocnd stage. The reasons will be at least one of the following: (1) the paper fails to meet the stated aims and objectives of the journal (2) a limited contribution to the journal's breadth of coverage, and (3) the perceived potential impact of the manuscript.
2) Peer evaluation stage of review
Where a paper is considered suitable for peer evaluation it will be sent to two referees. At least one of these must be on the Editorial Board of the journal.
On the basis of advice from these referees, the Editor will make a decision as to whether the manuscript might be published. If the Editor is not confident to make a decision in the face of conflicting reviews, another member of the Board may be called upon to help resolve differences that have arisen in the commentary advice. This process may involve sharing that advice but it will continue to respect anonymity of all parties. Typically there are three options when a decision is made:
(1) Publish at once, (2) Revise and re-submit, or (3) Rejected for publication. An invitation to revise involves no promise of subsequent publication - although, of course, this does imply a basically favourable reaction from referees and, therefore, publication should be within the author's reach.
Author-referee-journal communication practices
All communication with authors is mediated by the Editor to ensure the anonymity of both reviewers and authors. The Editor undertakes to discharge these duties according to the intent of both parties. However, authors may be protected from comments that the Editor judges to be offensive rather than critical.
Direct communication between reviewers themselves is permissible but should be mediated by the Editor in order to protect anonymity.
In making decisions, the Editor may take note of comments and advice made by reviewers that are not intended to be shared with authors.
Where these mediated exchanges do not result in concensus regarding the fate of a submission, the Editor may call on another member of the editorial board to break this deadlock. The Editor must then weigh the balance of opinion and make a final judgment as to publication.
Resubmission
On re-submission, the manuscript is read by the Editor and sent to both referees with a commentary from the Editor regarding his impression of how far revisions have met their concerns. Based on their reaction to this new manuscript a decision to publish may be made. If there are still reservations as to the wisdom of publication, the author may be asked to revise once more or the Editor may call in a third opinion as described above..
Papers submitted to Special Issues enjoy a similar level of scrutiny although, in this case, one referee will be allocated by the Guest Editor of that issue.