Peer review Process and Policy

  1. At the JCP, our primary focus is to publish interdisciplinary research and criticism on contemporary issues and developments in the domains of literary, linguistic and cultural studies.
  2. To be published in the JCP, an article must have a convincing argument, substantial evidence, original ideas, contemporary relevance and be written in an academic style.
  3. We follow a multi-step peer review process as explained below:
  • To save time for both contributors and reviewers, we conduct a desk review of each submissionand only the papers that meet our editorial criteria (i.e., follow the MLA style of referencing and citation; are 5000 – 8000 words in length; include all the prescribed sections, such as abstract, keywords, etc.; are written in an academic style; and fall within the scope of the Journal, etc.) move on to the next step.
  • All papers are run through a similarity check using Turnitin to rule out any possibility of academic theft. However, the papers are not saved in Turnitin’s repository.
  • After a submission passes the first two steps, we find experts in the relevant area, seek their consent and send the manuscript to them for a double-blind peer review, which means that reviewers do not know the author’s name or affiliation, and are assured that authors will also never know the reviewers’ name and affiliation. To give authors extensive feedback, we send each submission to two foreign reviewers in the technologically advanced countries and one Pakistani reviewer. We understand that in some rare cases, reviewers’ feedback and decisions can be conflicting. Therefore, the final publication decision will be made by the Editor-in-Chief. Under normal circumstances, the first round of the review process takes 3-5 months.
  • At this stage, if a manuscript is not recommended for publication by the reviewers, the author is duly notified.
  • A manuscript that is recommended for publication is sent back to the author with the reviewers’ feedback. Depending on the nature of changes (if any) suggested, the authors are given one to three months to improve and resubmit their manuscript.
  • An article that requires major changes is sometimes sent back to the same or other reviewers for a second round of review process which usually takes a further six weeks.
  • After a manuscript is improved in light of the reviewers’ feedback, the author is notified of acceptance.
  • As one of the final stages, the article is proofread and formatted by the JCP’s editorial team.
  • Once the manuscript is accepted for publication, proofs are shared with the authors in PDF format. At this stage, the editors may recommend changes. These edits are of a minor nature, such as addressing punctuation, typesetting, spelling consistency, use of image or diagrams, or table formatting. Edits must not exceed 30 in number at the final stage of the proof.

Instructions for Reviewers

  1. Reviewers must use the following rubric while reviewing a manuscript. They must comment on
  • The strengths of the submission for the Journal where it may be published
  • The weaknesses of the manuscript, due to which it should not be published or must undergo revisions
  • The originality of the manuscript
  • The framework and methodology employed in the manuscript
  • The manuscript’s level of engagement with an existing body of work
  • If the manuscript is written in a clear academic style
  • How the manuscript may be improved.
  1. A reviewer needs to give a conflict-of-interest statement, declaring that they are not receiving any professional and personal gains; that they have no financial interest in the publication of the paper, and that their personal interests are not competing with their responsibilities as a reviewer.