Peer review policy

The Journal of Discourse, Culture & Society (JDCS) employs a rigorous double-anonymised peer review process in which the identities of both authors and reviewers are strictly concealed from one another throughout the evaluation process. This ensures that every submission is assessed impartially, objectively, and solely on its scholarly merit.

Stages of the Evaluation Process

  • Initial Screening and Desk Review: Every submitted manuscript is first evaluated by the Editor-in-Chief and relevant Associate Editors. The editorial team assesses whether the work aligns with the journal’s aims and scope, demonstrates sufficient conceptual and methodological rigour, adheres to basic publication ethics, and meets formal presentation standards. Submissions that fall outside the journal’s scope or fail to meet baseline scholarly criteria are desk-rejected with reasoned feedback, without entering external review.
  • External Peer Review: Manuscripts that pass the desk review stage are assigned to at least two independent external referees with specialised expertise in the relevant field. Reviewers assess the manuscript’s originality, theoretical and methodological robustness, clarity of argument, and contribution to scholarship, and offer constructive feedback alongside one of the following recommendations:
    • Accept: Suitable for publication without further modifications.
    • Minor Revisions: Requires limited textual, argumentative, or stylistic amendments that do not require substantial structural changes.
    • Major Revisions: Requires substantive theoretical, methodological, or empirical revisions (the revised version will normally be returned to the original reviewers for re-evaluation).
    • Reject: Unsuitable for publication due to critical conceptual, methodological, or empirical shortcomings.
  • Editorial Decision: Referees act in an advisory capacity. The final decision on publication rests entirely with the Editor-in-Chief and the Editorial Board. If the initial referee recommendations conflict substantially (a split decision), the manuscript will be referred to an independent third reviewer before a final determination is reached.

Anonymisation Protocol

To maintain the strict confidentiality of the double-anonymised process, authors must take the following steps before uploading their main manuscript file:

  • Exclude author names, institutional affiliations, contact emails, and personal acknowledgements from the manuscript file. These details must be uploaded exclusively as a separate Title Page.
  • Refer to your own previous publications in the third person (e.g. use “Smith (2021) observed...” rather than “In our earlier study (Smith, 2021)...”). Avoid explicit acknowledgements of project grants or institutions in the main body.
  • Ensure that personal identifying information is removed from digital file properties (e.g. via File > Properties > Remove Personal Information in Microsoft Word).

Review Timelines & Workflow

JDCS is committed to providing authors with constructive, timely, and transparent editorial feedback:

  • Referee Invitation: Reviewers are invited and requested to confirm their availability within 3 days.
  • Review Completion: Referees are asked to return their detailed evaluation reports within 20 days of accepting the invitation.
  • Revision Window: When revisions are invited, authors are typically allowed 3 weeks for minor revisions and 6 weeks for major revisions.
  • Communication of Decisions: Editorial decisions are communicated to the corresponding author promptly following receipt and synthesis of all reviewer reports.