Peer Review

Type of Peer Review

CBLC operates double anonymized peer review. Authors do not learn the identity of reviewers, and reviewers are not told the identity of authors. Every research article, review article, replication study, theoretical article, position paper, and brief report is reviewed by at least two independent reviewers who are not members of the same institution as any author.

The Review Process

• Step 1. Acknowledgement. The editorial office confirms receipt of the submission and checks that all required files and declarations are present.
• Step 2. Similarity screening. The manuscript is screened for textual overlap with previously published work.
• Step 3. Editorial assessment. The Editor in Chief assesses whether the manuscript falls within the scope of the journal and meets a minimum standard of methodological soundness and clarity. Manuscripts that do not are rejected without external review, and the authors are informed of the reason.
• Step 4. Assignment. A handling editor is assigned. The handling editor invites reviewers with relevant expertise and no conflict of interest.
• Step 5. Review. Reviewers submit structured assessments together with a recommendation.
• Step 6. Decision. The handling editor makes a recommendation, and the Editor in Chief takes the decision. The decision letter conveys the full reviewer comments.
• Step 7. Revision. Authors submit a revised manuscript together with a point by point response to every comment. Revised manuscripts are normally returned to the original reviewers.
• Step 8. Final decision and production. After acceptance the article is copyedited, typeset, and sent to the corresponding author for approval of proofs before publication.

Decision Categories

• Accept. The manuscript is accepted in its current form.
• Minor revision. The manuscript will be accepted once specified changes are made. Normally assessed by the handling editor alone.
• Major revision. Substantial changes are required, and the revised manuscript will be sent for further review.
• Reject and resubmit. The current manuscript cannot be accepted, but a substantially reworked study on the same topic would be considered as a new submission.
• Reject. The manuscript is not suitable for the journal.

Selection and Conduct of Reviewers

Reviewers are selected for their expertise in the subject matter, methods, or context of the study. Reviewers must decline an invitation where they have a conflict of interest, including recent collaboration with an author, a shared institution, a personal relationship, or a competing financial or professional interest. Reviewers must treat the manuscript as a confidential document, must not use its contents for their own benefit before publication, and must not share it with any third party or upload it to any external service, including generative artificial intelligence tools.

Review in the Emerging Scholarship Track

Manuscripts in the Emerging Scholarship track receive the same standard of review as those in the Full Paper track. In addition, the handling editor provides developmental mentorship on the analysis and on the framing of research questions, and reviewers are asked to write with a developmental purpose. Proofreading and English language writing remain the responsibility of the authors. Manuscripts that are out of scope, or that are too far from an acceptable standard for mentorship to be feasible, are rejected by editorial decision.

Manuscripts Submitted by Editors

When an editor or editorial board member submits a manuscript, that person is excluded from all handling of the manuscript and from all access to the review record. Another editor with no conflict of interest manages the review and takes the decision independently.

Appeals

Authors who believe that a decision rests on a misunderstanding may appeal under the Appeals and Complaints policy.

Reviewer Guidelines

Thank You

Peer review is a service to the field and it is what makes the journal possible. CBLC is grateful to everyone who reviews for it.

Before You Accept

Accept an invitation only if you have the relevant expertise, if you have no conflict of interest, and if you can return the review within the requested period. If you cannot review, please say so promptly, and please suggest an alternative reviewer if you can.

What to Evaluate

• Fit. Does the manuscript address a question within the scope of the journal, and does it engage with context in a substantive way?
• Contribution. What is new here, and is that clearly stated and justified in relation to existing work?
• Method. Are the design, the participants, the measures, and the analysis appropriate to the research questions, and are they described in enough detail to be evaluated and replicated?
• Context reporting. Is the setting described in enough detail for readers to judge to whom the findings might transfer?
• Evidence. Are the claims supported by the evidence presented, and are limitations acknowledged honestly?
• Ethics. Are ethics approval, consent, and data protection reported adequately for the population studied?
• Clarity. Is the article organized and written clearly enough for its intended readership?

How to Write the Review

• Begin with a short summary of the manuscript in your own words, so that the editor and the authors can see how you understood it.
• Separate essential revisions from optional suggestions, and number your points so that authors can respond to them individually.
• Be specific. Point to the page and the line.
• Be constructive and courteous. Criticize the work, never the authors.
• If you recommend additional citations, explain why they are needed. Do not ask authors to cite your own work unless it is genuinely necessary.

Reviewing in the Emerging Scholarship Track

Reviews in this track have a developmental purpose. Where a study has a fixable weakness, explain how it might be fixed. Where the framing of the research question could be strengthened, suggest how. Language editing is the responsibility of the authors, so please focus your effort on substance rather than on proofreading.

Confidentiality and Artificial Intelligence

The manuscript is a confidential document. Do not share it, do not discuss it with anyone outside the review process without the permission of the editor, and do not upload any part of it to a generative artificial intelligence service. Delete your copy after the review process is complete.