Peer Review Process

JICoS upholds the highest standards of academic integrity through a rigorous double-blind peer review process, ensuring impartial evaluation by independent, anonymous experts. Upon submission, each manuscript undergoes the following structured stages:

Stage 1: Editorial Assessment
The process begins with an initial editorial evaluation to determine the manuscript’s suitability for the journal. The editor examines:

  1. Compliance with the journal’s submission guidelines;
  2. Alignment with the journal’s aims and scope;
  3. Potential contribution to the field and relevance to the readership.
    Manuscripts failing to meet these criteria may be desk-rejected at this stage; otherwise, they advance to peer review.

Stage 2: Double-Blind Peer Review
Eligible submissions are assigned to at least two independent referees with expertise in the relevant field. Reviewers remain anonymous to the authors and provide critical assessments of the manuscript’s scholarly merit, originality, and rigor. Their feedback guides the editor’s decision on whether to:

  1. Accept without revisions (rare),
  2. Request minor/major revisions, or
  3. Reject the submission.

Stage 3: Author Revision & Editorial Decision
If revisions are required, authors submit an amended manuscript addressing reviewers’ comments, accompanied by a point-by-point response. The editor may:

  1. Accept the revised version,
  2. Request additional revisions (further peer review may occur), or
  3. Reject the manuscript if revisions are deemed inadequate.

JICoS prioritizes transparency, constructive feedback, and timely communication throughout this process to uphold publication quality.