Initial Editorial Assessment

All manuscripts submitted to JCIA undergo an initial editorial assessment before peer review. This assessment determines whether the manuscript is appropriate for further consideration by the journal.

The editorial team considers whether the submission falls within the aims and scope of JCIA, complies with the journal's manuscript requirements and demonstrates sufficient scholarly quality to proceed to review.

The initial assessment may consider:

• relevance to the aims and scope of JCIA;
• completeness and organization of the manuscript;
• originality and scholarly contribution;
• appropriateness of the research design and methodology;
• clarity of presentation and academic writing;
• compliance with publication ethics requirements; and
• suitability for meaningful external peer review.

Preparing an Anonymized Manuscript

Authors are responsible for preparing their manuscript appropriately for double-blind peer review. Information that directly identifies the authors should not appear in the manuscript file provided to reviewers.

The anonymized manuscript should exclude:

• author names;
• institutional affiliations;
• author email addresses;
• ORCID identifiers;
• acknowledgments or statements that unnecessarily identify the authors; and
• other directly identifying information where reasonably avoidable.

Author names, affiliations and other required contributor information should be entered separately through the JCIA Online Submission System.

Selection of Reviewers

Manuscripts considered suitable for review are assigned to reviewers whose expertise is relevant to the subject, methodology or analytical approach of the study. Suitable manuscripts are normally evaluated by two reviewers under the journal's double-blind review process.

In selecting reviewers, the editorial team may consider subject expertise, methodological competence, independence, availability, and any actual or potential conflicts of interest. The JCIA reviewer database is continuously updated, and reviewer suggestions from the author(s) are also welcome, although these recommendations are non-binding and may not be used. Each manuscript submitted will be reviewed by at least two independent reviewers, after which the editor will make a final decision.

Reviewers who believe they lack the expertise to evaluate a manuscript appropriately, or who cannot complete a review within a reasonable period, should inform the editorial team and, where appropriate, decline the invitation. 

What Reviewers Assess

Reviewers are asked to provide an independent, evidence-based and constructive evaluation of the manuscript. Assessment should focus on scholarly merit rather than the presumed identity, background or institutional affiliation of the authors.

Quantitative and Analytics Research

For quantitative, computational and analytics research, reviewers may additionally assess the suitability of datasets, statistical assumptions, mathematical formulation, algorithms, model specification, performance measures, validation procedures, reproducibility and interpretation of analytical outputs, where relevant to the study.

Editorial Decisions

Reviewers provide reports and recommendations to assist the editorial team in evaluating the manuscript. Reviewer recommendations are advisory and form part of the overall editorial assessment.

Revision and Re-review

Where revision is requested, authors will be emailed a rebuttal form together with the reviewers' comments and should carefully consider all feedback provided by the reviewers and editorial team. A revised submission should normally be accompanied by a completed rebuttal form that provides a clear, point-by-point response explaining how each comment has been addressed.

Authors should:

• respond to each reviewer comment systematically;
• identify the corresponding changes made in the revised manuscript;
• provide a scholarly explanation where a suggested change has not been adopted;
• ensure that revised analyses, tables, figures and conclusions remain internally consistent; and
• submit the revision within the period specified by the editorial office.

A revised manuscript may be returned to the original reviewers or assessed by additional reviewers where further expert evaluation is considered necessary. More than one round of revision may be required.

Confidentiality of Peer Review

Submitted manuscripts and associated review materials are treated as confidential. Reviewers must not disclose, reproduce, distribute or discuss unpublished manuscript content with unauthorised persons.

Information, data, methods, findings or ideas obtained through peer review must not be used by reviewers for personal, professional or competitive advantage.

Conflicts of Interest

Reviewers should disclose any actual, potential or perceived conflict of interest that could reasonably affect the independence or objectivity of their review.

A reviewer should decline an invitation where a financial, professional, collaborative, competitive, institutional or personal relationship could compromise, or reasonably appear to compromise, impartial assessment of the manuscript.

Editors are likewise expected to manage manuscripts in a manner that protects editorial independence and avoids inappropriate influence arising from conflicts of interest.

Manuscripts Submitted by Editorial Board Members

Manuscripts submitted by members of the JCIA Editorial Board are subject to the same scholarly standards and peer review requirements as other submissions.

An editor who is an author, co-author or otherwise has a conflict of interest in relation to a submission should not participate in its review management or editorial decision. The manuscript should be handled independently by another appropriate editor.

Final Editorial Decision

Following peer review and any required revision, the responsible editor evaluates the manuscript in light of the reviewer reports, the authors' responses and the revised manuscript.

Where reviewer recommendations differ substantially, or where further specialist assessment is required, an additional reviewer may be invited before a final decision is reached.

The final decision takes into account the manuscript's originality, methodological and analytical soundness, clarity, relevance to JCIA, contribution to knowledge and compliance with the journal's publication policies.

Manuscripts accepted for publication proceed to the journal's copyediting, production and publication workflow.