Journal Policies


Peer Review Process

All submissions are initially assessed by an Editor, who decides whether or not the article is suitable for peer review. Submissions considered suitable undergo a double-blind review by a minimum of two faculty members affiliated with institutions of higher learning from around the world. Submissions are accepted on a rolling basis and will be published online following a successful review and revision.

We aim for a review process of eight to twelve weeks, depending on the availability and schedule of reviewers. The faculty reviewers have expertise in disciplines closely related to those represented by the submission. When possible, the work is also reviewed by undergraduates in collaboration with the faculty reviewers, allowing undergraduates to gain valuable experience with the peer-review process.

Based on the reviewer reports the editor will make a recommendation for rejection or acceptance with major, minor or no revisions. Overall editorial responsibility rests with the journal’s Editors-in-Chief, who are supported by an expert Editorial Board.

If accepted, authors are asked to undertake revisions and submit the new version of the manuscript along with a completed revision report form of the work completed. Depending on the scale of revisions, reviewers may be asked to re-evaluate and confirm whether those revisions are satisfactory. A final round of revisions for formatting, grammar, citation, and other mechanics completes the submission process.

Reviewer Guidelines

Across all disciplines, reviewers are asked to provide a constructive set of evaluative comments that can be sent to authors. These comments provide actionable feedback for the author regarding the work’s originality, thesis development, argumentation, citations, and/or readability as relevant:

Reviewers of research articles in the Humanities and Sciences are specifically asked to evaluate the degree to which a submission achieves the following:

  • A central, specific, and arguable claim is clearly articulated in the introduction and sustained throughout the work.
  • The argument makes a discrete, identifiable intervention into scholarly debate and/or critical conversation.
  • Mechanics, citation, and all other documentation meet disciplinary style expectations.

Reviewers of articles specifically focused on empirical research are asked to evaluate the degree to which a submission achieves the following:

  • The study design presented adequately tests the proposed research question.
  • The sampling procedure is appropriate to the study’s design and aims.
  • The data analysis procedures employed are appropriate for this study.
  • The findings are thoroughly presented and reflects disciplinary conventions of interpretation.

Reviewers of literature reviews (Sciences) or annotated bibliographies (Humanities) are asked to evaluate the degree to which a submission achieves the following:

  • The work integrates and synthesizes a representative body of current scholarship regarding a discrete topic.
  • By summarizing and appraising major movements in a topic or field, the work identifies gaps and offers new directions for future research.
  • Mechanics, citation, and all other documentation meet disciplinary style expectations.

Reviewers of creative works are asked to evaluate the degree to which a submission achieves the following:

  • A central idea, aim, question, or conflict is compelling communicated.
  • The work employs genre- or medium-appropriate conventions to illuminate its central aim.
  • The work benefits from skillful application of relevant craft techniques.

Simultaneous Submissions

IJURCA is only able to accept and review works submitted sequentially (to one publication at a time) and not simultaneously (under review at multiple venues concurrently). This reflects conventional practices of research journals in the Sciences and Humanities. While it is conventional for artistic work such as poetry or documentary to be submitted to multiple venues simultaneously, due to the nature of our workflow and staff we are unable to do so at this time. We do, however, encourage you submit work that has been refined after being presented at one or more conferences. Failure to adhere to this sequential submission policy is cause for rejection of the manuscript.

Preprint Policy

The journal allows authors to deposit draft versions of their paper into a suitable preprint server, on condition that the author agrees to the below:

  • The author retains copyright to the preprint and developed works from it, and is permitted to submit to the journal.
  • The author declares that a preprint is available within the cover letter presented during submission. This must include a link to the location of the preprint.
  • The author acknowledges that having a preprint publicly available means that the journal cannot guarantee the anonymity of the author during the review process, even if they anonymise the submitted files (see review policy).
  • Should the submission be published, the authors are expected to update the information associated with the preprint version to show that a final version has been published in the journal, including the DOI linking directly to the publication.


The journal strongly recommends that all authors submitting a paper register an account with Open Researcher and Contributor Identifier (ORCID). Registration provides a unique and persistent digital identifier for the account that enables accurate attribution and improves the discoverability of published papers, ensuring that the correct author receives the correct credit for their work. As the ORCID remains the same throughout the lifetime of the account, changes of name, affiliation, or research area do not effect the discoverability of an author's past work and aid correspondence with colleagues.

The journal encourages all corresponding authors to include an ORCID within their submitting author data whilst co-authors are recommended to include one. ORCID numbers should be added to the author data upon submission and will be published alongside the submitted paper, should it be accepted.

Competing Interests, Funding, and Ethics

To ensure transparency, all authors, reviewers and editors are required to declare any interests that could compromise, conflict or influence the validity of the publication. Competing interests guidelines can be viewed on the Publication Ethics page.

In addition, authors are required to specify funding sources and detail requirements for ethical research in the submitted manuscript (see Author Guidelines).

Corrections and Retractions

In accordance with guidelines from the Committee on Publication Ethics (where applicable), the Press handles different kinds of error. All articles have their proofs checked prior to publication by the author/editor, which should ensure that content errors are not present. Please contact your editorial manager if an article needs correcting.

Post-publication changes are not permitted to the publication, unless in exceptional circumstances. If an error is discovered in a published article then the publisher will assess whether a Correction paper or Retraction is required. Visit out Publication Ethics page for more information.

Misconduct and Complaints

Allegations of misconduct will be taken with utmost seriousness, regardless of whether those involved are internal or external to the journal, or whether the submission in question is pre- or post-publication. If an allegation of misconduct is made to the journal, it must be immediately passed on to the publisher, who will follow guidelines from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) on how to address the nature of the problem. Should the matter involve allegations against a member of the journal or publishing team, an independent and objective individual(s) may be sought to lead the investigation.

Should an author wish to lodge a complaint against an editorial decision or the editorial process in general they should first approach the Editor-in-Chief of the journal, explaining their complaint and ask for a reasoned response. Should this not be forthcoming or inadequate, they should raise the matter with the publisher, who will investigate the nature of the complaint and act as arbiter on whether the complaint should be upheld and investigated further. This will follow guidelines set out by COPE.

{ top }