Publication Ethics

JHUP Journals Ethics and Malpractice Statement

JHUP Journals Ethics and Malpractice Statement can be found here.

Peer Review Policy

The Journal of Chinese Religions (JCR) is the longest-standing journal in the field of Chinese religions. It is a peer-reviewed, bi-annual academic journal that publishes studies in Chinese religions from a great variety of disciplinary perspectives, including religious studies, philology, history, art history, anthropology, sociology, political science, archaeology, and literary studies. The Journal welcomes original research articles, shorter research notes, essays, book reviews, and field reports on all aspects of Chinese religions in all historical periods. All submissions, except invited book reviews, need to undergo double-blind peer review before they can be accepted for publication.

The editor carries out a preliminary review of all submissions to ascertain that they fit the journal’s thematic profile and do not have any obvious quality problems (e.g., in methodology, documentation, or English language competence). If serious problems emerge, the editor may reject a submission outright. Otherwise (and more commonly) he may make recommendations for revisions prior to beginning the double-blind peer review process.

Two reviewers are each provided with an anonymized version of the submission (both docx and pdf) and a review report form asking them to return a formal vote on the submission; the choices given are (1) “Accept,” (2) “Accept with revisions,” (3) “Accept with revisions, but only after I have approved the revised manuscript,” or (4) “Reject.” Furthermore, reviewers are asked to provide detailed comments in the following format:

1. Please comment on the manuscript’s main argument, especially its contribution to the field of Chinese religions:

2. Please comment on the manuscript’s structure. Are the arguments presented coherently?

3. Please comment on the author’s use of primary and secondary sources:

4. Other comments.

If both reviewers vote to “accept” or “accept with revisions,” the editor makes the final acceptance decision on the basis of the revised version submitted by the author. Any reviewer voting to “accept with revisions, but only after I have approved the revised manuscript” will receive the revised version for final approval. If both reviewers vote to reject the submission, then that is the final decision communicated to the author. If the votes and comments of the two reviewers show significant discrepancies, the reviewer may ask a third reviewer to serve as tie-breaker.

The whole review process (preliminary review + double-blind peer review) normally takes a maximum of 2.5 months (two weeks for the editor’s preliminary review, two months for double-blind peer review). The length of the subsequent revision process is variable, as the author is given no firm deadlines and final papers are processed for publication in the order they are received.