Reviewer Process

The Journal of Community Research is an open access journal and peer reviewed by academics that have expertise in the field.  The reviewers role is to evaluate the manuscript’s quality and suitability for publication.

As well as being a form of quality control for academic journals, peer review is also a very useful source of feedback, helping the author to improve their paper before it is published. At its best, review is a collaborative process, where authors engage in a dialogue with their peers and receive constructive support to advance their work.  The process that is adopted by the reviewer for the Journal of Community Research is as follows:

Step 1: Editor Assessment

When a manuscript arrives to the journal’s editorial team it will receive an initial desk assessment by the journal’s editor. They will check that it’s broadly suitable for the journal, asking questions such as:

  • Is this the right journal for this article?
  • Does the paper cover a suitable topic according to the journal’s aims and scope?
  • Has the author followed the journal’s guidelines?
  • Does the paper conform to the basic requirements of the journal, such as word count, language clarity, and format?
  • Has the author included everything that is needed for peer review? They will check that there is an abstract, author affiliation details, any figures, appendices etc

If the article does not pass these initial checks the editor might reject the article immediately. Otherwise it will move to the next stage, and into peer review.

Step 2: First Stage of Peer Review

The editor will then find and contact other researchers who are experts in your field, asking them to review the paper. A minimum of two reviewers is required for every article and they will be asked to read and comment on the article.

Reviewers will be checking that:

  • The work is original or new;
  • The study design and methodology are appropriate and described so that others could replicate what has been done;
  • The author has engaged with relevant and current research
  • The results are appropriately and clearly presented;
  • The conclusions are reliable, significant, and supported by the research;
  • The paper fits the scope of the journal;
  • The work is of a high enough standard to be published in the journal.

The reviewer will complete a report and submit this to the editor.  Once the editor has received and considered the reviewer reports, as well as making their own assessment of the article, they will let inform the author of their decision. The reviewer reports will be shared with the author along with any additional guidance from the editor.

Step 3: Revise and resubmit

It is very common for the editor and reviewers to have suggestions about how authors can improve their paper before it is ready to be published. They might have only a few straightforward recommendations (‘minor amendments’) or require more substantial changes before the paper will be accepted for publication (‘major amendments’).

Authors will receive anonymous feedback from their reviewers together with a publication decision made by an editor, which is guided by reviewers’ comments.  Articles requiring major revisions can also be re-submitted. The resubmitted article will then be evaluated by an editor and in most cases will be presented for a further round of peer review, preferably by the original reviewers.

Resubmission of an article with minor or major revisions does not guarantee that the article will be accepted for publication in the journal. Final publication decisions are made by the editors of the journal.

During this next stage of the process the authors therefore have time to amend their article based on the reviewers’ comments, resubmitting it with any or all changes made and providing a supporting document listing a summary of all the changes that have been made and how the author has responded to reviewers comments.

Once the paper has been resubmitted the editor will look through the revisions. They will often send it out for a second round of peer review, asking the reviewers to assess how the author has responded to their comments.  The reviewer will complete a report on the revised paper and submit this to the editor.

After this, the author may then be asked to make further revisions, or the paper might be rejected if the editor thinks that the changes made are not adequate. However, if the revisions have now brought the paper up to the standard required by that journal, it then moves to the next stage.

Step 4: Accepted

And that’s it, the paper has made it through peer review. The next step is publication which is a process that will be led by the editorial team.  They will communicate with the author before the paper is published for a final proof-reading exercise and again to confirm publication of the paper.