The journal employs a double-blind peer review system as its default model, meaning authors do not know reviewers’ identities and vice versa. This is widely regarded as a best practice to reduce bias. The policy will be clearly stated on the site.
- Process Overview: All submissions undergo an initial editorial check for fit and compliance. Suitable manuscripts are sent to at least two independent expert reviewers. Reviewers submit confidential reports with recommendations. The handling editor then makes a decision based on these reports. The process continues through any required revision rounds until a final decision.
- Timeline: The goal is to complete initial review in 4–6 weeks. Typically, editors make a first decision (reject, revise, or accept) within 6 weeks of submission. If revisions are invited, authors are given ~3 weeks to respond. Upon resubmission, revised manuscripts are either re-reviewed or assessed by the editor within 2–3 weeks. Final publication (post-acceptance processing) target is 4–6 weeks. These timelines will be monitored and reported annually (see Metrics section).
- Desk Rejection: If a submission is out of scope or has serious flaws, the Editor-in-Chief may issue a desk rejection without external review. The author will receive feedback explaining the reasons. This triage helps focus reviewer effort on promising work.
- Revision Rounds: Manuscripts not rejected may be invited for Minor or Major revision. In Minor Revision, authors address small issues (clarifications, typos) within a short timeframe. Major Revision indicates substantial changes (additional analysis, rewritten sections) and allows a longer revision period. Authors must detail point-by-point responses to reviewer comments. Typically, only one major revision round will be allowed. Revised submissions must be accompanied by a revision letter and a clean + marked-up copy.
- Editorial Checks: Before final acceptance, editors will verify that all required changes are made and that ethical standards remain upheld. This includes verifying disclosure statements, plagiarism scan results on the revised text, figure quality, and compliance with data and copyright policies.
- Transparency of Peer Review: The site will describe who conducts the review (external experts), how anonymity is maintained, and any exceptions. For instance, invited reviews (e.g. editorials) may be handled by editors. The policy will note that author-suggested reviewers are allowed with appropriate safeguards. It will also state that supplementary files (data, appendices) are included in peer review.
Below is a summary of the peer review workflow:
flowchart LR
A[Manuscript Submission] –> B[Initial Editorial Screening<br>(scope, format, plagiarism)]
B –>|Revisions Needed| C[Desk Reject / Invite Resubmit]
B –>|OK to Review| D[Assign to Handling Editor]
D –> E[Invite Reviewers (x2)]
E –> F{Reviewers Accept?}
F –>|No| G[Invite Replacement Reviewer]
F –>|Yes| H[Review Period]
H –> I[Receive Reports]
I –> J{Editor Decision}
J –>|Reject| K[Decision: Reject]
J –>|Major Revise| L[Decision: Revise (Major)]
J –>|Minor Revise| M[Decision: Revise (Minor)]
J –>|Accept| N[Decision: Accept]
L –> O[Receive Revised Manuscript] –> D
M –> O
N –> P[Proceed to Production]
Additionally, the journal will consider options for post-publication peer review (comments, corrections) as appropriate, following COPE advice. The Peer Review Policy page will clearly define this process, in line with DOAJ’s requirement that the type and details of peer review be stated online.
Peer Review Models Comparison
| Review Model | Author Identity Visible | Reviewer Identity Visible | Advantages | Challenges / Notes |
| Single-blind | No | Yes | Reviewers free to criticize; common model | Reviewer bias possible; conflicts may arise |
| Double-blind | No | No | Reduces both sides’ bias; widely respected | Anonymity may be imperfect in niche fields |
| Open | Yes | Yes | Full transparency; reviewer gets credit | May intimidate reviewers; potential bias |
| Collaborative | Varies | Varies | Reviewers may discuss to improve report | More coordination required |
(The CELT Journal uses double-blind by default. Details of review model and process are posted on the website.)