A submission is initially evaluated by a Co-Editor concerning the appropriateness of the manuscript for JSCM. If the paper does not fit with the Journal's mission, or is deemed as not sufficiently strong in terms of theory or methodology, it will be rejected at this point. If the submission passes this initial review stage, it will then undergo a double blind review process. The first review of every manuscript is performed by a minimum of two, and generally three to four, anonymous referees. An Associate Editor then evaluates the paper and the reviewers' comments, and provides a recommendation to the Co-Editor responsible for the paper. The Co-Editor will then accept, reject or request a revision of the manuscript based on the reviewers' and Associate Editor's recommendations. Revised and resubmitted papers will be returned to the Associate Editor for evaluation. After considering the Associate Editor's evaluation of the revised manuscript, the Co-Editor will accept, reject or request further revision of the paper. A second revision will then be evaluated by the Co-Editor, and possibly the Associate Editor, for a final decision.
When an author(s) submits a manuscript to the Journal, there is an implicit quid pro quo: a willingness to review for JSCM. The foundation of the review process at JSCM is the agreement and eagerness of colleagues to provide constructive feedback to each other through the peer review process.
As of December 7, 2009, the manuscript submission and review process is managed via an online platform called "ScholarOne". Information regarding the submission of new manuscripts may be found under Guidelines for Submissions.