Peer Review Process
The Canadian Journal of Career Development (CJCD) follows a double-blind peer review process. Manuscripts selected for peer review are typically evaluated by two independent reviewers and the review process is managed by the Journal’s editors. Peer review is an important part of the Journal’s mission to publish high-quality scholarship while fostering a supportive and constructive environment for scholars at all stages of their careers. Reviewers contribute their expertise by providing thoughtful, constructive, and evidence-informed feedback on manuscripts submitted for consideration.
In a double-blind peer review process, both authors and reviewers remain anonymous to one another throughout the review process. The editorial team takes additional steps to protect the anonymity and integrity of the review process. When selecting reviewers, editors consider potential conflicts of interest, including institutional affiliation, and avoid assigning reviewers from the same institution as the authors.
The editorial team also does not intentionally research or seek out authors’ identities or affiliations beyond the information required to administer the submission. These practices are intended to reduce the potential for bias and help maintain the integrity of the double-blind review process.
In general, the peer review and publication process includes the following stages.
Submission and Editorial Pre-Review
Submission: The author submits the manuscript to the Journal through the online submission system.
Editorial pre-review: An editor conducts an initial assessment of the submission. This assessment may include:
- the overall quality and readability of the manuscript;
- adherence to the Journal’s submission and formatting requirements;
- alignment with the Journal’s focus and scope; and
- alignment with the submission category selected by the author.
Following the editorial pre-review, the manuscript may either:
1. be declined at the editorial stage (desk rejection); or
2. proceed to the peer review stage.
A decision to decline a manuscript at this stage does not necessarily reflect on the overall quality of the research. Manuscripts may be declined because they fall outside the Journal’s scope, do not meet the submission requirements, or are not appropriate for the selected category.
Peer Review
Anonymization: For manuscripts selected for peer review, the editorial team ensures that identifying information has been removed from the manuscript and associated files.
Reviewer selection: Editors identify reviewers whose expertise and experience are appropriate to the manuscript. Factors considered when selecting reviewers may include:
- the statistical or methodological approaches used;
- the manuscript’s topic and focus;
- the submission category; and
- the language of the manuscript.
Editors also consider potential conflicts of interest when selecting reviewers.
Reviewer invitation: The editorial team contacts potential reviewers to determine their availability. We respect the time and expertise of our volunteer reviewers and do not require them to accept review invitations. Reviewers are generally given seven days to respond to an invitation. If a reviewer does not respond, the editorial team may send a follow-up invitation before seeking an alternative reviewer.
Review period: Once a reviewer accepts an invitation, they are generally given four to six weeks to complete their review. Extensions may be granted when requested. Where a review is delayed, the editorial team may provide the authors with an update regarding the status of their manuscript.
Reviewers are asked to provide constructive feedback on the manuscript, including substantive and minor issues, questions for the authors, and comments related to methodology, presentation, writing, or formatting where relevant. Reviewers also provide a recommendation to assist the editors in reaching an editorial decision.
Post-review Editorial Decision
Once the requested reviews have been received, the editors consider the reviewers’ comments and recommendations alongside their own assessment of the manuscript. Not all comments provided to the editors will necessarily be shared with the authors. For example, editors may withhold comments that are confidential, inappropriate, or not relevant to the authors’ revision of the manuscript.
Following the review process, the editors may:
- request revisions and invite the authors to resubmit the manuscript;
- decline the manuscript; or
- where appropriate, make another editorial decision based on the circumstances of the submission.
If a manuscript is declined following peer review, the authors will receive notification of the decision, the editorial rationale where appropriate, and the reviewer feedback that the editors determine can appropriately be shared.
Revision Stage
When a revised manuscript is submitted, the editors assess the revisions in relation to:
- the reviewers’ feedback;
- changes made to the original manuscript; and
- the authors’ responses to reviewer comments.
Depending on the nature and extent of the revisions, the manuscript may either:
1. be returned to the reviewers for a subsequent round of peer review; or
2. proceed toward acceptance for publication.
The number of review and revision rounds may vary depending on the manuscript and the revisions required.
Copy-Editing Stage
Once a manuscript has been accepted for publication, it enters the copy-editing queue. The manuscript will generally be scheduled for the nearest available issue based on available publication space, the production timeline, and publication deadlines. The Journal currently publishes twice a year, in January and September. Production for each issue generally begins approximately four to five months before publication.
A copyeditor will work with the author to identify and address copy-editing issues. Authors will have an opportunity to review and approve the final editorial changes before the manuscript proceeds to production.
Production & Publication Stage
Following completion of copy editing, the manuscript enters the final production stage. The production team will provide the author with a print proof for review. Authors are asked to carefully check the proof for factual, bibliographic, typographical, and other production errors and to confirm approval for publication. The editorial team will provide an estimated publication date when possible and will notify the author when the issue has been published.
The timelines provided above are approximate. The duration of the review and publication process may vary depending on reviewer availability, the number and extent of revisions required, editorial decision-making, and production schedules.