Peer Review Process

Journal of Philology and Codicology Cathexis Studies (JPCCS) applies a double-blind peer-review system.

The identities of authors are concealed from reviewers, and the identities of reviewers are concealed from authors throughout the review process.

Initial Editorial Screening

All submitted manuscripts undergo initial editorial screening.

The editorial team evaluates:

  • relevance to the Focus and Scope;
  • compliance with Author Guidelines;
  • completeness;
  • originality;
  • academic quality;
  • methodological appropriateness;
  • ethical compliance;
  • plagiarism or inappropriate similarity;
  • suitability for peer review.

Manuscripts that fail to meet the journal's requirements may be rejected without external review.

Reviewer Selection

Manuscripts that pass initial screening are normally reviewed by at least two external and independent reviewers.

Reviewers are selected based on:

  • expertise;
  • research experience;
  • publication record;
  • independence;
  • absence of conflicts of interest;
  • ability to provide constructive evaluation.

Review Criteria

Reviewers assess:

  1. originality;
  2. scholarly contribution;
  3. relevance to JPCCS;
  4. theoretical foundation;
  5. methodological soundness;
  6. quality of evidence;
  7. coherence of analysis;
  8. validity of conclusions;
  9. engagement with relevant literature;
  10. academic language;
  11. compliance with journal guidelines.

Reviewer Recommendations

Reviewers may recommend:

  • Accept Submission
  • Revisions Required
  • Resubmit for Review
  • Decline Submission

Reviewer recommendations are advisory.

The final editorial decision rests with the Editor-in-Chief.

Revisions

Authors receiving revision requests must carefully address reviewer and editor comments.

Revised manuscripts may be:

  • evaluated by the handling editor;
  • returned to the original reviewers;
  • sent to additional reviewers where necessary.

Conflicting Reviews

When reviewers provide substantially different recommendations, the editor may:

  • assess the arguments provided;
  • request clarification;
  • invite a third independent reviewer;
  • request additional revision.

Conflict of Interest

Reviewers and editors must disclose actual or potential conflicts of interest.

Reviewers must decline assignments when their independence may reasonably be compromised.

Confidentiality

All manuscripts, reviewer reports, and editorial communications are treated as confidential.

Estimated Timeline

The journal normally aims for:

  • Initial screening: 1–7 days
  • Reviewer selection: 3–7 days
  • Peer review: 2–4 weeks
  • Author revision: according to the extent of revisions
  • Re-review: approximately 1–3 weeks
  • Final editorial evaluation: approximately 3–7 days

The first substantive editorial decision is normally expected within approximately 4–8 weeks.

These timelines are indicative rather than guaranteed.