Start Submission Become a Reviewer

Editorial Policies

Peer Review Process

All submissions are assessed by the editors to decide whether they should be further reviewed. Those selected for review will be sent anonymously to referees. JCOSL adopts a double-blind review process. This usually involves review by two independent peer reviewers.

We think a clear communication between journal and the reviewers is essential to facilitate consistent and timely review. All submitted papers and the reviewers’ reports are discussed. The final decision regarding a manuscript is made by the Editorial Board.

We also respect the confidentiality of the peer review process and it is important to remain unbiased. Original research articles authored by a member of the journal’s editorial team are independently peer reviewed. When an editor is an author of a manuscript, the peer review process is handled by the co-editor.

The average time from submission to first decision is eight weeks.

Reviewer Guidelines

Reviewers are asked to provide comment on the below topics and guidelines:

  • Content: Does the article fit within the scope of the journal? Is the submission original, relevant and rigorous? Is the author’s depth of understanding of the issues researched adequate? Are the sources and references adequate? Has the existing knowledge base been explored and built upon? Are the chosen methodologies appropriate and have they and the evidential base been appropriately used? Does the conclusion reflect the argument in the main body text and bring something new to the debate?
  • Structure and argument: Does the abstract summarise the arguments in a succinct and accurate way? Is the manuscript logically structured and do the arguments flow coherently? Is there enough reference to methodology in the introduction and are the arguments fully evidenced and substantiated? Does the introduction signpost the arguments in the logical way and does the conclusion adequately summarise them?
  • Figures/tables: Does the author’s use of tables, charts, figures or maps illustrate the arguments and support the evidential base? Is the quality of the formatting and presentation adequate?
  • Formatting: Does the submitted file adhere to the general author guidelines listed for the journal? Are the citations and references formatted to house-style?
  • Language: Is the text well written and jargon free? Please comment on the quality of English and need for grammatical improvement.
  • Data availability: Has data used in the study been adequately described and made available? Is the data curated in a usable format? Is there a 'Data Availability' statement providing information on how to access the data?

Section Policies

Editorial

  • Open Submissions
  • Indexed
  • Peer Reviewed

Presidential Address

  • Open Submissions
  • Indexed
  • Peer Reviewed

Reviews

  • Open Submissions
  • Indexed
  • Peer Reviewed

Research Articles

  • Open Submissions
  • Indexed
  • Peer Reviewed

Case Reports

  • Open Submissions
  • Indexed
  • Peer Reviewed

Quick links