Editorial Policies

Peer Review Standards

Editorial and Peer Review Flow

Administrative, Scope, and Quality Screening

After submission, manuscripts undergo an initial administrative check to verify completeness, conformity with the Author Guidelines, required metadata, manuscript format, author information, and supporting declarations.

The Editorial Team then evaluates whether the manuscript fits the aims and scope of JoCPES and demonstrates sufficient scientific quality, originality, methodological relevance, and presentation quality to proceed to external review.

Manuscripts that are clearly outside the journal scope, scientifically unsuitable, substantially incomplete, or inconsistent with journal policies may be rejected during editorial screening without external peer review.

Similarity Screening

Manuscripts may be screened using plagiarism-detection or similarity-checking software before external peer review.

Similarity reports are evaluated contextually. A similarity percentage alone is not treated as definitive evidence of plagiarism. Editors assess the source, extent, location, and nature of the overlapping material.

Manuscripts containing unacceptable plagiarism, duplicate publication, inappropriate text recycling, or other serious integrity concerns may be returned to the authors or rejected in accordance with JoCPES policies.

Reviewer Assignment

Manuscripts that pass editorial screening are assigned to an editor and normally evaluated by at least two reviewers with relevant subject expertise.

Reviewer selection is based on scientific expertise, research experience, relevance to the manuscript topic, availability, independence, and absence of inappropriate conflicts of interest.

Reviewer Conflict of Interest

Reviewers must disclose any financial, professional, institutional, collaborative, competitive, personal, or other relationship that could reasonably affect their independence or impartiality.

A reviewer who believes that a conflict of interest may compromise objective evaluation should decline the review invitation or immediately inform the editor.

Reviewer Confidentiality

Submitted manuscripts, supplementary materials, reviewer reports, and editorial correspondence must be treated as confidential.

Reviewers must not disclose, distribute, reproduce, discuss, or use unpublished information obtained through peer review for personal, professional, or competitive advantage.

Reviewers must also comply with the JoCPES Generative Artificial Intelligence Policy and must not upload confidential unpublished manuscripts to publicly accessible AI systems when confidentiality cannot be assured.

Editor Conflict of Interest and Recusal

Editors must disclose circumstances that could reasonably compromise or appear to compromise their impartiality.

An editor should recuse themselves from handling a manuscript when they have a significant conflict of interest with the authors, institutions, research, financial interests, or subject matter.

In such cases, the manuscript should be reassigned to another qualified editor who can manage the review process independently.

Possible Review Decisions

Author Revision and Re-evaluation

When revision is requested, authors should submit a revised manuscript together with a detailed response explaining how each reviewer and editor comment has been addressed.

Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers, evaluated by the handling editor, or both, depending on the extent and nature of the revisions.

A request for revision does not constitute a guarantee of eventual acceptance.

Handling Disagreement Between Reviewers

Reviewers may reasonably reach different conclusions regarding the same manuscript. Editorial decisions are therefore not based solely on a numerical majority of recommendations.

When reviewer recommendations differ substantially, the handling editor evaluates the scientific arguments, evidence, methodological concerns, and significance of the issues raised in each report.

The editor may request clarification from reviewers, conduct an independent editorial assessment, or obtain an additional expert review before reaching a decision.

Additional Reviewer Mechanism

An additional reviewer may be invited when:

• existing reviewer recommendations are substantially contradictory;
• specialized expertise is required for a particular method or scientific issue;
• a reviewer report is insufficient to support a reliable editorial decision;
• a reviewer becomes unavailable during a revision round; or
• the editor determines that further independent scientific assessment is necessary.

The purpose of an additional review is to improve the quality and reliability of the editorial decision, not merely to obtain a particular recommendation.

Editorial Timeline

JoCPES aims to communicate an initial editorial or peer-review decision within approximately 30 working days.

This timeframe is an editorial target rather than a guaranteed deadline. Review duration may vary depending on reviewer availability, manuscript complexity, the number of revision rounds, and the need for additional expert assessment.

Final Editorial Decision

The final decision is based on the manuscript's scientific quality, reviewer assessments, author responses, revisions, ethical compliance, and adherence to JoCPES editorial standards.

The Editor-in-Chief or authorized handling editor retains responsibility for the final publication decision.

After acceptance, manuscripts proceed through copyediting, layout preparation, author proofreading, and final publication.

Appeals Against Editorial Decisions

Authors may appeal an editorial decision when they believe that a significant scientific, procedural, or factual issue has materially affected the decision.

Appeals should provide a clear, respectful, and evidence-based explanation addressing the relevant editorial or reviewer concerns.

Where appropriate, an appeal may be evaluated by the Editor-in-Chief or another editor who was not substantially involved in the original decision.

Submission of an appeal does not guarantee that the original decision will be reversed.