The JCLI employs a double-blind manuscript review process. With a double‐blind review approach, the identity of both the author(s) and reviewer are unknown to both parties.

The JCLI conducts its editorial work using the Online Journal System (OJS). The OJS is a system that systematically handles JCLI’s double-blind review process. Once a manuscript is submitted through the OJS, it is automatically logged in and checked (by the journal manager) to ensure that the submission is complete and has been prepared according to the JCLI submission instructions. At this time a receipt of manuscript acknowledgement is sent to the corresponding author confirming that his/her manuscript has been received and is being considered for possible publication in JCLI.

All manuscripts submitted for publication in the JCLI are first evaluated by the Managing Editor, either individually or in consultation with the Editorial Board member(s), to assess its suitability for the journal in line with the journal’s aims and scope. This is an important step to ensure that the content falls within the scope of the journal in terms of quality and/or impact on policy. Manuscripts that do not meet the journal’s expected standards are rejected with an explanation of reasons behind a desk-reject decision. Those manuscript’s meeting the journal’s expected standards are then checked for ‘similarity’ (similarity index (SI)) using the iThenticate software. The JCLI allows a SI of 20%. Those papers having a SI > 20% are returned to the authors for further re-writing to bring the index to 20% or less. These papers when resubmitted are then assigned to at least two reviewers. Reviewers are given 21 days to provide a detailed report on the manuscript with their recommended decision, which can either be ’accept‘, ’minor revision‘, ’major revision‘, or ’reject‘. Where reviewer reports are in conflict the Managing Editor reads the report(s) and the paper and conveys the final decision to the corresponding author.

When a ‘revise’ decision is made, for ‘minor revisions’ (‘major revisions’) authors are provided between 2-3 months (3-6 months) to undertake revisions. When revised papers are submitted, in the case of minor revisions, the Managing Editor reads the paper and the rejoinder and makes a final decision. In the case of a major revision, resubmitted papers are again assigned to reviewers and the editorial decision proceeds from there.

In all cases, regardless of the reviewer recommendation, the final decision on whether or not to publish a paper rest solely with the Managing Editor who in making the editorial decision keeps in mind the scope/aims of the journal.