Peer Review Process
JCIS employs a rigorous double-blind peer review process designed to ensure the originality, validity, and scholarly quality of all published work, in line with international best practice (e.g., COPE guidelines) expected by Scopus reviewers.
- Initial Editorial Screening: The Editor-in-Chief and Managing Editor assess each submission for fit with the journal's scope, originality, and adherence to author guidelines. Submissions failing this stage are desk-rejected within 1–2 weeks, with a reasoned explanation provided to the author.
- Plagiarism Check: All manuscripts passing initial screening are screened using similarity-detection software (e.g., Turnitin or iThenticate); a similarity index above 20% (excluding references) is returned to the author for revision.
- Double-Blind Review Assignment: Manuscripts are anonymized and assigned to a minimum of two independent reviewers with relevant subject-matter expertise, selected for international and institutional diversity.
- Review Period: Reviewers are asked to submit evaluations within 3–4 weeks, assessing originality, theoretical/methodological rigor, argumentation, relevance to journal scope, and quality of scholarly writing.
- Editorial Decision: Based on reviewer recommendations, the Editor-in-Chief issues one of: Accept, Minor Revision, Major Revision, or Reject. In cases of conflicting reviews, a third reviewer may be consulted.
- Revision and Resubmission: Authors are given a defined period (typically 2–4 weeks) to address reviewer comments and resubmit a point-by-point response.
- Final Decision and Copyediting: Once accepted, manuscripts proceed to language and technical copyediting, layout, and DOI assignment prior to online publication.
The average time from submission to first editorial decision is targeted at 4–6 weeks, and from submission to final publication decision at 10–14 weeks, consistent with the publication-speed expectations of leading indexed journals.
