The Journal of Community Development Diversity (JCDD) is committed to maintaining rigorous standards of academic excellence and integrity. Our peer review process ensures that all manuscripts meet the journal’s standards for quality, originality, and relevance to the field of community development and diversity. JCDD uses a double-blind peer review process, where both the identities of authors and reviewers are kept confidential to promote objective and unbiased assessments.

1. Initial Manuscript Assessment

  • Editorial Screening: Upon submission, each manuscript undergoes an initial assessment by the editorial team. This screening evaluates the manuscript’s adherence to JCDD’s focus, originality, and compliance with submission guidelines. Manuscripts that do not meet these basic requirements may be returned to the authors for revision or declined at this stage.
  • Plagiarism Check: All submissions are screened for plagiarism using specialized detection software. Manuscripts with significant overlap or plagiarism issues may be rejected or returned to the authors for proper citation and revision.

2. Double-Blind Peer Review Process

  • Reviewer Selection: Manuscripts that pass the initial assessment are sent to at least two independent experts in the relevant field. Reviewers are selected based on their expertise and familiarity with the manuscript’s subject area to ensure a thorough and informed review.
  • Confidentiality: In the double-blind review process, both the reviewers and the authors remain anonymous to each other, ensuring unbiased feedback.

3. Criteria for Evaluation

  • Reviewers evaluate the manuscript based on the following criteria:
    • Originality and Contribution to the Field: The work should provide new insights, advance knowledge, or contribute to the discourse in community development and diversity.
    • Methodology and Rigor: The research methodology must be sound, appropriate, and well-documented.
    • Clarity and Structure: The manuscript should be clearly written, logically structured, and free from errors.
    • Relevance and Practical Implications: The work should be relevant to the field and, where applicable, offer practical implications for community development practitioners.

4. Review Outcomes

  • Based on the reviewers’ assessments, the editorial team makes one of the following decisions:
    • Accept: The manuscript is accepted with minor or no revisions.
    • Minor Revisions Required: The manuscript is accepted pending minor revisions. Authors are given a specified period to address the reviewers' comments.
    • Major Revisions Required: The manuscript requires significant revision before it can be reconsidered. Authors are asked to resubmit the revised manuscript for a second round of review.
    • Reject: The manuscript does not meet the journal’s standards for publication and is not suitable for reconsideration.

5. Revision and Resubmission

  • Authors are provided with feedback from reviewers and asked to address all comments and suggestions within a specified timeframe. Revised manuscripts may undergo further review to ensure all concerns have been addressed satisfactorily.

6. Appeals and Disputes

  • Authors who disagree with the review decision may submit an appeal to the editorial board with a detailed explanation. Appeals are reviewed carefully, and a final decision is made based on the merits of the case.

7. Reviewer Conduct and Confidentiality

  • Ethical Standards: Reviewers are expected to conduct evaluations fairly, objectively, and ethically. They must disclose any conflicts of interest and decline reviews if they feel unable to provide an unbiased assessment.
  • Confidentiality: All manuscripts under review are confidential. Reviewers must not disclose information from the manuscript or discuss its content with others.