Peer review
Every research paper we publish is read and assessed by independent experts first.
Our model
CIJAR uses double-blind peer review. Reviewers don't know who wrote the paper, and authors don't know who reviewed it. This keeps the focus on the work itself rather than on reputations or affiliations.
Each manuscript that passes the editors' first check is sent to at least two reviewers with expertise in its subject. The editors then weigh the reviews and make the decision. Reviewers advise; editors decide.
To keep the review blind, remove your names, affiliations and acknowledgements from the manuscript file, and avoid phrases like "in our earlier study (Author, 2023)" that reveal who you are.
How a paper is reviewed
First check by the editors
We confirm the paper fits the journal's scope, follows the guidelines and passes the Turnitin similarity check.
Choosing reviewers
We invite at least two experts with no conflict of interest with the authors or their institutions.
Independent assessment
Each reviewer reads the paper separately and sends a written report with a recommendation, usually within 2–3 weeks.
Editorial decision
The editor considers the reports, may seek a further opinion if they disagree, and sends the decision with the reviewers' comments.
Revision and re-review
If changes are needed, the revised paper may go back to the same reviewers before the final decision.
A first decision usually takes 4–6 weeks from submission.
What reviewers look for
Originality
Does the paper add something new to its field?
Method
Is the approach sound and described clearly enough to check?
Evidence
Do the data, sources or arguments support the conclusions?
Engagement with the literature
Does it cite and respond to the relevant existing work?
Clarity
Is it well organised and readable for a non-specialist scholar?
Ethics
Were approvals, consent and disclosures handled properly?
Possible outcomes
What we expect of reviewers
Only accept what you can do well
Decline an invitation if the paper is outside your expertise or you can't meet the deadline. If you need more time, ask before the deadline passes.
Treat the manuscript as confidential
Don't share or discuss the paper with anyone without the editor's permission, and don't use its unpublished ideas or data in your own work.
Be fair and constructive
Judge the work, not the author. Explain your reasoning, point out specific problems, and suggest how the paper could be improved. Personal remarks aren't acceptable.
Declare conflicts of interest
Tell the editor if you think you know who the authors are, or if you have a competing, collaborative or financial relationship that could affect your judgement.
Flag missing sources and overlap
Point out important work the authors haven't cited, and tell the editor if the paper closely resembles something you've seen published elsewhere.
Keep the review blind
Don't try to identify or contact the authors. Reviewers who are unresponsive may be replaced so the paper isn't delayed.
Appeals
If you believe a decision was based on a misunderstanding or factual error, you can appeal within 30 days. Email the editor with a clear explanation and a point-by-point response to the reviewers' comments. The editorial board will look at the case again, may ask an additional independent reviewer, and will tell you its final decision. A rejected paper won't be reconsidered simply because the author disagrees with the outcome.
Questions about this policy? Write to editor@cijar.org.
Ready to submit?
Original work, double-blind review, no fees.