Use structured checklists to confirm that reviewer concerns are addressed. When revisions are incomplete, request clarification and identify specific sections requiring attention.

Clear, focused feedback improves author outcomes and reduces review cycles.

Maintain a balance between conceptual insight and empirical evidence when evaluating manuscripts. Encourage authors to clarify theoretical assumptions, define key terms, and align methods with research questions.

When needed, recommend statistical or methodological review to strengthen the evidence base and improve reproducibility.

Use a mix of methodological and theoretical expertise to evaluate interdisciplinary manuscripts. Aim for reviewers with complementary perspectives and avoid close collaborators of the authors.

When specialized methods are used, include at least one reviewer who can assess technical validity.

Document key reasons for decisions and communicate them clearly in decision letters. Consistent rationales improve transparency and support future audits.

If reviewer recommendations diverge, explain how the final decision was reached.

For special issues, coordinate with guest editors to align scope and timelines while maintaining journal level standards. Use the same review checklists and ethical policies as regular submissions.

Guest editors can provide topic expertise, but final decisions remain with JC editors.

New editors receive a brief onboarding guide with policies, templates, and reviewer expectations. The editorial office can schedule short orientation sessions to answer questions.

Ongoing updates are shared when policies or workflows change. Quick start checklists and example decisions are available.

The editorial office assists with reviewer invitations, conflict screening, and ethical questions. Contact us before issuing a decision if a complex case arises.

We can also advise on appeals and post publication corrections when needed.