Peer Review Process

Editorial Policy

 

 

Scientific Independence

Editorial decisions are based on scientific merit, relevance, originality, ethical compliance, and the strength of the evidence. Commercial interests, publication fees, institutional status, personal relationships, and non-scientific considerations do not determine the outcome.

Confidentiality

Submitted manuscripts, reviewer reports, editorial correspondence, research data, and supporting files are confidential. Editors and reviewers must not disclose, distribute, quote, reproduce, or use unpublished material for personal or professional benefit.

Objective Assessment

Reviewers must provide evidence-based, constructive, and substantive comments. Personal criticism, discriminatory language, unsupported conclusions, and assessments limited only to grammar, formatting, font, or layout are not acceptable.

✓

Authors submit the manuscript, complete article metadata, declarations, and all required supporting files through the JCBP online submission system. The corresponding author confirms that the manuscript is original, has not been published previously, is not being reviewed by another journal, and has been approved by all listed authors.

◆

The editorial office checks the completeness of the submission, article type, metadata, author information, manuscript file, anonymized review file, abstract, keywords, tables, figures, references, declarations, ethical approval information, informed consent information, funding statement, conflict of interest statement, and data availability statement when applicable.

✓

The Editor-in-Chief or assigned editor evaluates whether the manuscript fits the journal's aims and scope, presents a clear scientific contribution, follows the author guidelines, uses an appropriate research design, provides sufficient scholarly references, and meets the journal's minimum standards of academic writing and research integrity.

A manuscript may be declined before external review when it is outside the journal's scope, lacks a clear scientific contribution, contains fundamental methodological weaknesses, does not comply with essential submission requirements, or presents serious ethical concerns. A desk rejection decision includes a clear editorial explanation.

◆

The manuscript is screened using similarity detection software and examined for plagiarism, inappropriate text recycling, duplicate submission, redundant publication, fabricated or falsified data, manipulated images, improper authorship, undisclosed conflicts of interest, citation manipulation, and other possible publication ethics violations.

Similarity results are interpreted qualitatively. The journal does not rely only on a total percentage because similarity concentrated in a particular source, sentence, paragraph, figure, or table may remain unacceptable even when the overall percentage appears low. Suspected misconduct is handled according to the journal's publication ethics policy and relevant Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) guidance.

✓

The Editor-in-Chief assigns the manuscript to a Section Editor or Handling Editor with relevant expertise. The Handling Editor manages reviewer selection, invitations, reminders, review reports, author revisions, and the preparation of an editorial recommendation. An editor who has a conflict of interest must withdraw and the manuscript must be reassigned.

◆

Each manuscript that passes editorial screening is normally assigned to at least two independent reviewers. Reviewers are selected based on subject expertise, relevant publication history, methodological competence, scholarly reputation, availability, and absence of conflicts of interest.

Reviewers should not come from the same institution as the authors and should not have recent collaborative, supervisory, financial, professional, or personal relationships that could affect objectivity. Peer reviewers are recorded separately from the editorial team and must not act as the Handling Editor for the same manuscript.

✓

Reviewers assess the manuscript independently and confidentially. They submit comments for the authors, confidential comments for the editor when necessary, and a recommendation. Reviewer comments must identify the strengths and weaknesses of the manuscript and provide specific guidance that can improve its scientific quality.

The editor may send reminders when a review is overdue. When an invited reviewer cannot complete the assessment within the required period or lacks appropriate expertise, the reviewer must promptly decline so that another qualified reviewer can be appointed.

◆

The Handling Editor evaluates the quality, completeness, consistency, and scientific reasoning of the reviewer reports. Editorial decisions are not determined by a simple vote. The editor considers the strength of the reviewers' arguments, the manuscript's scientific contribution, ethical compliance, methodological quality, and relevance to the journal.

When reviewer reports conflict substantially, are incomplete, or do not provide sufficient scientific justification, the editor may request clarification, appoint an additional reviewer, or conduct further editorial assessment before issuing a decision.

✓

Authors invited to revise must submit a revised manuscript and a detailed response to every reviewer and editor comment. The response must explain the revision made, identify its location in the manuscript, and provide a reasoned scientific explanation when a recommendation is not followed.

Revisions must be uploaded through OJS. Revised manuscripts sent only by personal email are not treated as formal revisions unless the editorial office records and uploads them into the journal system.

◆

A minor revision may be evaluated by the Handling Editor when the requested changes do not alter the central analysis or conclusions. A major revision is normally returned to the original reviewers for another review round. A replacement reviewer may be appointed when an original reviewer is unavailable or when additional expertise is required.

More than one revision round may be required. Submission of a revised manuscript does not guarantee acceptance. The manuscript must satisfy all scientific, ethical, and editorial requirements before a final acceptance decision is issued.

✓

The Editor-in-Chief holds final responsibility for accepting or declining a manuscript. An authorized Handling Editor may communicate the decision when acting under the journal's editorial structure. Every final decision is recorded in OJS and communicated to the corresponding author with the relevant editorial explanation.

Accepted manuscripts proceed to copyediting, language editing when required, reference checking, layout preparation, metadata validation, author proofreading, DOI registration, issue scheduling, and publication.

Subject Expertise

Reviewers must have demonstrated expertise relevant to the manuscript's topic, theory, method, population, or analytical approach. Expertise is assessed through publication records, research experience, professional recognition, and scholarly profiles.

National Qualification

A nationally qualified reviewer should have a relevant publication record within the previous five years, including experience as a first or corresponding author, or as a contributing author to several articles published in accredited scientific journals.

International Qualification

An internationally qualified reviewer should have a relevant publication record within the previous five years, including experience as a first or corresponding author, or as a contributing author to several articles published in international scientific journals.

Alignment with the journal's aims and scope

Originality and significance of the contribution

Clarity of the research problem and objectives

Adequacy of the theoretical and empirical literature

Appropriateness of the research design and methods

Sampling, instruments, data collection, and analysis

Accuracy and transparency of the reported results

Depth of analysis, interpretation, and discussion

Consistency between objectives, findings, and conclusions

Research ethics, consent, and participant protection

Relevance, quality, and currency of the references

Contribution to theory, policy, or professional practice

Revision Required

Limited revisions are required. The revised manuscript may be evaluated directly by the Handling Editor.

Resubmit for Review

Substantial revisions are required. The revised manuscript normally enters another external review round.

Accept Submission

The manuscript meets the journal's scientific, ethical, and editorial requirements and proceeds to production.

Decline Submission

The manuscript does not satisfy the journal's scientific, ethical, methodological, or editorial requirements.

Reviewer Conflicts

Reviewers must decline an invitation when financial, institutional, collaborative, competitive, supervisory, personal, or professional relationships may affect their objectivity.

Editor Conflicts

An editor with a conflict of interest must not access confidential reviewer identities or make decisions on the manuscript. The Editor-in-Chief assigns an independent editor to manage the submission.

Author Disclosure

Authors must disclose relevant financial and non-financial interests during submission. The journal may request clarification or supporting documents when a potential conflict is identified.