This journal has adopted a double-blind reviewing policy, where both the author and reviewer remain anonymous throughout the process. The journal will ensure that timely decision regarding accepting or declining manuscripts are taken. Those manuscripts which don’t fall within the aim and scope of the journal and don’t meet the editorial standards will not go to the review process.

Responsibilities of a Reviewer

Reviewers play a critical role in upholding the scholarly record's integrity by adhering to the following standards:

• Conflicts of Interest: Reviewers must declare any potential competing interests, whether personal, financial, intellectual, professional, political, or religious. Reviewers should decline to review if such conflicts exist.
• Timeliness: Reviewers should respond to review invitations promptly and only accept if they can complete the review within the proposed timeframe. If their circumstances change, they must inform the journal promptly and suggest alternative reviewers if possible.
• Conducting a Review: Reviewers should thoroughly read the manuscript, supplementary data and reviewer instructions, respecting the confidentiality of the review process.
• Ethics Violations: If reviewers suspect any ethical issues, such as research misconduct or plagiarism, they should contact the journal editor immediately and refrain from investigating personally.
• Transferability of Peer Review: Reviewers may be asked to transfer their reviews to other journals within a publisher’s portfolio. If they agree, they should provide their original review, noting any changes and differences in evaluation criteria.

Preparing a Review Report

Reviewers should follow the journal’s instructions for writing and submitting reviews. Reports should be objective, constructive, and specific, providing feedback that helps authors improve their manuscripts. Read the manuscript and any supplementary data files thoroughly. Get clarity from the editor on items which are imprecise during the review. Treat all elements of the review process as confidential, don’t use any material or involve anyone not part of the review process without approval from the Editor. Report any suspicions of violations of publication ethics to the editor promptly. Reviewers must avoid hostile, inflammatory, or defamatory comments and ensure their recommendations to accept, revise, or reject align with their comments.

Reviewers should respect the authors’ style, suggesting changes only to improve clarity. They should distinguish between essential additional analyses and those that merely extend the work. Accountability is key; reviews should be conducted independently unless permission is granted to involve others. Reviewers must avoid unnecessarily delaying the review process or suggesting citations to boost their own citation counts.

Responsibilities of the Author

Reviewers play a critical role in upholding the scholarly record's integrity by adhering to the following standards:

• Conflicts of Interest: Authors must declare any potential competing interests, whether personal, financial, intellectual, professional, political, or religious..
• Timeliness: Authors should respond to review corrections promptly and complete the review corrections within the proposed timeframe. If their circumstances change, they must notify the editor.

 Post-Review Considerations

Reviewers should be willing to review revised or resubmitted manuscripts and respond promptly to journal inquiries. They should notify the journal if any new information arises that may affect their original review. Reviewers must continue to respect the confidentiality of the review process even after it is completed.

 

Peer Review and Oversight for Special Issues

Peer Review Procedure for Special Issues
All special issues are subject to the same rigorous double-blind peer review as regular submissions. Minor adjustments may be made to align with the unique focus of each special issue.

• Guest Editors: Thematic experts may be invited to act as guest editors, assisting with the initial assessment of submitted manuscripts and recommending appropriate peer reviewers.

• Evaluation Criteria: Submissions are reviewed for both their academic quality and their alignment with the theme of the special issue.

• Editorial Collaboration: Guest editors work closely with the JCSE editorial team to ensure consistency in the peer review process.

• Final Decision-Making: The JCSE editorial board maintains full authority over all final publication decisions, ensuring the journal’s academic integrity is upheld.

Editorial Oversight of Special Issues

• Guest Editor Involvement: Where guest editors are appointed, they collaborate with JCSE’s editorial board to ensure that all manuscripts meet the journal’s editorial standards and formatting guidelines.

• Initial Screening: Manuscripts are first checked for thematic relevance and adherence to JCSE’s scope and submission requirements.

• Editorial Board Supervision: The JCSE board provides quality assurance and has the final say on all acceptances or rejections, including for papers in special issues.

---

Policy on Guest Editor Submissions
To promote fairness and transparency, JCSE has specific rules governing submissions from guest editors.

1. Independent Review Process

   • Manuscripts authored or co-authored by guest editors must go through JCSE’s standard double-blind peer review.

   • Guest editors may not select reviewers or influence decisions on their own submissions.

   • A neutral editor or JCSE board member oversees the review of these manuscripts to avoid conflicts of interest.

2. Submission Limits

   • Contributions by guest editors (individually or in collaboration) may not exceed 25% of the total articles in any special issue.

   • This policy ensures a balanced and inclusive range of scholarly voices in each issue.