Peer Review Policy
The practice of peer review is to ensure that good research is published. It is a process at the heart of good scholarly publishing and is carried out on all reputable journals. Our referees play a vital role in maintaining the high standards and manuscripts are peer reviewed following the procedure outlined below.
Special Issues have different peer review procedures involving, for example, Guest Editors and/or Advisory Editors. Authors contributing to these projects may receive full details of the peer review process on request from the editorial office.
Initial manuscript evaluation
All new submissions are screened for completeness and adherence to the Guide for Authors. Those that pass are then assigned to a Senior Editor for consideration for sending for peer review. Authors of manuscripts rejected at initial evaluation stage will normally be informed within 1 week of receipt.
Senior Editor evaluation
When assigned a new submission, the Senior Editor will decide if it warrants peer review or if it should be rejected without review. Manuscripts rejected at this stage are insufficiently original, have serious conceptual and/or methodological flaws, have poor grammar or English language, or are outside the aims and scope of the journal.
Authors of manuscripts rejected at this stage will normally be informed within 10 days of assignment to the senior editor.
Feedback is provided by the Senior Editor for all manuscripts rejected without review and, where possible, suggestions are made on other suitable publication outlets.
Those manuscripts deemed suitable for peer review are passed to at least 2 expert referees for review.
Type of peer review
Journal of Coastal Life Medicine employs double-blind review, where both the referee and the author remain anonymous throughout the process.
How the reviewers are selected
Reviewers are matched to the paper according to their expertise, and our referee database is constantly being updated. We welcome suggestions for reviewers from authors, though these recommendations may or may not be used.
Reviewers are asked to evaluate a manuscript for:
- originality and significance of contribution
- interest to social scientists and/or practitioners
- international relevance
- coverage of appropriate existing literature
- adequacy of methodology, analysis and interpretation
- clear, concise and jargon-free writing style
Reviewers are asked to provide anonymous comments to the author and are also given the option of providing confidential comments to the editor. The comments to the author are also made available to other reviewers of the manuscript.
Reviewers are not expected to correct or copy edit manuscripts. Language correction is not part of the peer review process.
How long does the review process take?
Typically the manuscript will be reviewed within 50 days. Should the reviewers' reports contradict one another or a report is unduly delayed, a further expert opinion will be sought. If necessary, revised manuscripts may be returned to the initial reviewers, usually within 1 month. Reviewers and Senior Editors may request more than one revision of a manuscript, and alternative reviewers may also be invited to review the manuscript at any time.
The final decision and time to publication
The Senior Editor is responsible for the decision to reject or recommend the manuscript for publication. This decision will be sent to the author along with any recommendations made by the referees.
Please note we may forward accepted papers for legal review if appropriate.
After acceptance, it currently takes 1 week to get a citable, uncorrected draft of the article online, another 4-5 weeks to get the final corrected article online, and a few weeks later this is compiled into an online volume and issue.
Guidelines to reviewers can be found on this link: https://publicationethics.org/files/u7140/Peer review guidelines.pdf