Peer Review Policy

Peer Review

Every article submitted to the journal is subjected to a strict plagiarism check through our two-step process, which involves both software and manual checking. Once an article passes through this process, it is subjected to editorial review for scope, relevance, and other standard requirements.

Peer review is the major quality maintenance measure for any academic journal. In this process, experts in the relevant fields analyze the scholarly work from every pertinent perspective, including its originality, level of understanding of preceding studies, its documentation, and its impact on and significance for the discipline.

JCPC follows a double-blind review process to ensure impartial editorial decision-making, which is closely monitored by the editors. Reviewers play a pivotal role in our scholarly publishing process, and their valuable opinions confirm the quality of the article under consideration. Peer review helps to certify research, establishing a standard for evaluation within research communities. Normally turn-around time for evaluation of manuscripts is four to six months from the date of receipt.

Depending on reviewer commentary and recommendations, manuscripts may be sent back to authors for revision. After the managing editor receives the revised manuscript along with a summary of any revisions made, it may be assigned to the reviewer(s) once again, for approval of changes. But the final decision to publish is made by the Editor-in-Chief.

Peer Review Process

1. 1. Submission: Authors submit all required materials, including abstract and keywords.
2. 2. Desk Review: Submitted articles are first checked by the editor(s) to assess whether they are within the broad scope of the journal and have enough merit. The editors may reject a paper without peer review if its topic or content fall outside the journal's stated mandate, is of poor quality, or does not comply with the journal's stated format. A decision not to send a paper for peer review will not be influenced by an editor's views about the authors or their home institution; the Editor-in-Chief will communicate the reasons for not advancing a given submission to the author.
3. 3. Peer Review: If a submission is deemed appropriate in topic, content, quality, and format it will be sent out to two reviewers with the requisite expertise needed to evaluate the work for publication. Reviewers are asked to complete their reviews within one month of receipt and to provide clear reasons for judging the submission to be in one of the following four categories: Accepted for Publication, Minor Revision, Major Revision, Reject
4. 4. Authors are asked to respond to reviewers and make necessary corrections.
5. 5. Articles are sent out for 2nd round review.
6. 6. Editor-in-Chief may accept, reject, accept with minor alterations, or sent out for third review.