Peer-review Policies

The Journal of Boredom Studies (JBS) is an international, peer-reviewed, open-access journal. All research articles submitted to the journal undergo a rigorous double-blind peer-review process. The identities of authors and reviewers are kept confidential throughout the review process.

Initial Editorial Assessment

Upon submission, manuscripts are first assessed by the editors to determine whether they meet the journal's basic formal requirements, fall within the journal's scope, and demonstrate sufficient scholarly quality to proceed to external peer review.

Manuscripts that do not meet the journal's formal requirements or are clearly outside the journal's scope may be rejected at this stage. This initial editorial assessment does not constitute a scientific peer-review decision.

External Peer Review

Manuscripts that pass the initial editorial assessment are normally sent to at least two independent specialists with relevant expertise in the subject of the manuscript.

Reviewers are selected based on their academic expertise and suitability for the manuscript. They are expected to provide an objective, constructive, and sufficiently detailed assessment of the manuscript, taking into account its originality, scholarly significance, methodological soundness, engagement with relevant literature, clarity of presentation, and overall contribution to the field.

Reviewers must maintain the confidentiality of the manuscripts they receive and must not use unpublished information obtained through the review process for their own purposes.

Reviewers are required to disclose any potential conflict of interest that could affect the impartiality of their assessment. They should decline an invitation to review a manuscript when they have a personal, professional, financial, or other relationship with the authors or the work that could reasonably compromise their objectivity.

Editorial Decisions

Following the external reviews, the editors make a decision based on the reviewers' reports and their own assessment of the manuscript.

The possible decisions are:

• accept;
• accept subject to minor revisions;
• revise and resubmit, subject to further review; or
• reject.

Where the reviewers' recommendations substantially differ, the editors may seek an additional independent review before reaching a decision.

When revisions are requested, authors are normally given an opportunity to respond to the reviewers' comments and revise their manuscript. Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers or sent to additional reviewers when appropriate.

The final editorial decision rests with the Editorial Board and is based on the scholarly merits of the manuscript and the available peer-review reports.

Review of Manuscripts Authored by Editors or Editorial Board Members

Membership of the Editorial Board or Scientific Board does not confer preferential treatment in the review or publication process.

Manuscripts authored or co-authored by the journal's Directors, editors, Editorial Board members, Scientific Board members, or other individuals involved in the editorial decision-making process are subject to the same double-blind peer-review procedure and scholarly standards as all other submissions.

An editor who is an author or co-author of a manuscript, or who otherwise has a conflict of interest in relation to a submission, is excluded from the editorial assessment, selection of reviewers, and final decision-making process for that manuscript.

In such cases, the manuscript is assigned to another editor who has no conflict of interest and who oversees the peer-review process and editorial decision independently.

The journal does not allow authors to influence the selection of reviewers or the editorial decision concerning their own manuscripts.

Reviewers' Ethical Responsibilities

Reviewers are expected to:

• evaluate manuscripts objectively and constructively;
• respect the confidentiality of the review process;
• identify relevant published work that has not been appropriately cited, where applicable;
• disclose any conflicts of interest;
• decline to review manuscripts when they lack the appropriate expertise or cannot provide an impartial assessment;
• avoid using unpublished information obtained through peer review for personal or professional advantage; and
• refrain from discriminatory, defamatory, or otherwise inappropriate comments.

Reviewers should not attempt to identify the authors of manuscripts under double-blind review.

Similarity and Plagiarism

Manuscripts may be screened for textual similarity and potential plagiarism during the editorial and peer-review process. Where concerns about plagiarism, duplicate publication, fabrication, falsification, or other forms of research misconduct arise, the journal follows its Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement and relevant best-practice guidance.

Timelines

The journal aims to complete the initial editorial assessment promptly and normally seeks to obtain external peer-review reports within the timeframe specified in its submission guidelines. The overall review period may vary depending on reviewer availability, the complexity of the manuscript, and the need for additional rounds of review.

Transparency and Independence

The Journal of Boredom Studies is committed to maintaining an independent and transparent editorial process. Editorial decisions are based on the scholarly quality, originality, methodological rigor, relevance, and contribution of submissions, and are not influenced by the authors' institutional affiliation, seniority, nationality, gender, or other personal characteristics.

The journal's peer-review process is designed to ensure that all manuscripts receive fair and rigorous scholarly evaluation.

Download the Review Form.