Editorial Process and Peer Review

All research published in the Journal of Contemporary Eastern Asia is peer reviewed. Reviews are carried out by external experts in the field — not by the handling editor alone and not, as a matter of course, by members of the editorial board. This page describes the review model, who takes each decision, and how long each stage should take.

Type of peer review

JCEA operates single-anonymised peer review: the identities of the reviewers are not disclosed to the authors, while the reviewers see the authors' identities. Certain special issues are handled double-anonymised at the discretion of the guest editors, in which case the call for papers for that issue says so and authors are asked to supply an anonymised manuscript file.

Reviews are not published alongside articles and reviewers are not asked to sign their reports. Reviewer identities remain confidential indefinitely, unless a reviewer asks the editor to disclose their identity to the authors and the editor agrees.

Supplementary material submitted with a manuscript is provided to reviewers and is assessed as part of the article; it is not separately peer reviewed after acceptance and is published as supplied by the authors.

What is peer reviewed, and what is not

Full-length research articles and short research papers / rapid communications are peer reviewed by at least two external reviewers.
Book reviews and editor's notes are not sent for external peer review. They are assessed editorially by the Book Review Editor or the Editor-in-Chief for accuracy, fairness and fit, and are labelled as such on their article pages so that readers can distinguish them from peer-reviewed research.

No manuscript is accepted without evaluation. Acceptance is never guaranteed by submission, by payment of any charge, or by invitation to submit.

The process, stage by stage

1. Pre-check

A Managing Editor screens each submission for scope and fit, completeness against the submission checklist, compliance with the manuscript template and word limits, and evidence of originality screening. Manuscripts that fall outside the journal's scope, that do not meet its basic standards, or that do not comply with the format requirements are declined at this stage without external review, normally within two weeks. The Editor-in-Chief or, for a special issue, the Guest Editor is then notified and proposes reviewers.

2. Peer review

At least two independent review reports are obtained for every research article. Reviewers are selected for their published expertise in the subject of the manuscript. A reviewer must:

have no conflict of interest with any author (see the conflicts of interest policy) — in particular, reviewers are not selected from an author's own institution, from among an author's supervisors or students within the past three years, or from among co-authors and active collaborators within the past five years;
hold a doctorate, save in fields where an equivalent professional standing is customary;
have recent publications in the subject area of the manuscript; and
not have reviewed for the journal in the immediately preceding period, so that the reviewer pool is not concentrated in a few hands.

Every reviewer completes a conflict-of-interest declaration before submitting a report. Reviewers are asked to treat the manuscript as confidential, not to use its content for their own purposes, and not to upload it to any generative AI service (see the AI policy).

Author-recommended reviewers. Authors are asked at submission to suggest three experts in their area, with affiliations and a short rationale for each. Suggestions must not include co-authors, colleagues at the author's own institution, supervisors or students. The editors are not bound by these suggestions; they are one input among several, and the editors routinely identify reviewers independently. A decision is never based solely on reports from author-recommended reviewers. Authors may also name individuals they would prefer not to review the manuscript, with reasons; the editors will normally respect such a request but are not obliged to.

3. Editorial decision

The handling editor assesses the suitability of the reviewers, the adequacy and consistency of their reports, and the scientific quality of the manuscript, and recommends one of: accept, reject, revise (minor or major), or seek a further review. Where two reports conflict materially, a third reviewer is invited.

The Editor-in-Chief is responsible for the academic quality of the publication process and takes the final decision on every manuscript, or delegates that authority to a Managing Editor or, for a special issue, to a Guest Editor. Reviewers advise; they do not decide. Where the Editor-in-Chief is an author of the manuscript, is at the same institution as an author, or has any other competing interest, the manuscript is handled in full by a Managing Editor with no connection to the work.

4. Revision

Authors invited to revise receive the full text of the reviewers' comments and are asked to return a revised manuscript together with a point-by-point response. Revised manuscripts are normally returned to the original reviewers. A manuscript will not go through more than two rounds of major revision other than in exceptional circumstances; an invitation to revise is not a commitment to publish.

5. Production

Accepted manuscripts are copy-edited, professionally language-edited where required, converted to XML, and typeset. Proofs are sent to the corresponding author for approval. The article is then registered with a DOI, published in the next issue, and deposited for indexing and preservation. Where substantial language editing is required, the cost is disclosed to the author in advance — see Author Fees.

Timelines

Stage	Target
Pre-check decision	2 weeks from submission
Reviewer report on a new manuscript	2 weeks from acceptance of the invitation
Reviewer report on a revised manuscript	3 days
Submission to first decision	approximately 2 months
Submission to publication (journal average, as recorded with DOAJ)	approximately 14 weeks

These are targets and a published average, not guarantees. Where a manuscript is delayed beyond them — most often because a reviewer withdraws late and a replacement must be found — the editorial office informs the corresponding author of the reason and the expected timetable. An author whose manuscript is delayed may withdraw it at any time, without charge, by writing to j.c.eastern.asia@gmail.com.

Publication dates

Every article carries its date of publication on the article page. Articles published from 2026 onwards also carry the dates on which the manuscript was received and accepted.

Integrity screening

Authors must supply an originality report from an international plagiarism-detection service with their submission. In addition, the editorial office screens manuscripts with iThenticate where overlap is suspected at any stage, including after acceptance. Suspected plagiarism, redundant publication, data fabrication or falsification, image manipulation and citation manipulation are handled under the journal's research misconduct policy.

Ethics and standards

JCEA is a member of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and follows its Core Practices and flowcharts, together with the CONSORT, TOP and ACOMS guidelines. Appeals against decisions and complaints about the editorial process are handled as described under Complaints and appeals.