Peer Review Process
The Journal Editors screen submitted articles for relevance, quality, contribution, originality, accuracy, and interest before assigning a decision of decline or sending them out for review. Submissions sent for review are then distributed to a minimum of two qualified reviewers. The Journal Editors determine what will be included in the Journal by consulting the reviewers’ assessment and comments.
Submissions are assigned a decision of decline or send for review within 30 days of receipt. Typically, authors receive reviewer feedback and the Editor’s decision on their submission within nine months; however, timelines for submission of reviews varies pending the availability of qualified peer reviewers. If accepted, submissions are usually published in the next available issue.
The Journal may use software to screen for plagiarism. No data, text, or theories by others may be presented as if they were the author’s own (‘plagiarism’). Proper acknowledgements to other works must be given, including material that is closely copied (near verbatim), summarized and/or paraphrased. Quotation marks must be used to indicate words taken from another source or for verbatim copying of material, and permissions must be secured for material that is copyrighted.
Please refer to the Publication Ethics statement below and consult the Submissions page for detailed submission guidelines.
Peer reviewers are asked to evaluate and judge submissions using the following criteria:
- complete, coherent, and well-organized presentation;
- sufficient explanation of the significance of the problem;
- clear demonstration of the relevance to the field;
- original contribution;
- compelling presentation of the problem within a theoretical framework (where appropriate);
- article is within the scope and focus of the Journal;
- appropriate research design and method;
- accurate and useful interpretation;
- sound argument and analysis; and
- effective conclusion.
Peer reviewers are asked to indicate their assessment based on the above criteria and offer comments. Reviewers’ comments are extremely important to help the authors revise and improve their papers.
Reviewers for CJLT are previous CJLT authors or experts in the field. The full list of those who completed at least one review between 2019 and 2023 is available here.
