Peer Review Process

All submitted manuscripts will be subject to a double blind peer review by up to four expert members of the evaluation research community. Authors are required to ensure that all clues to their identity are removed from manuscripts submitted for potential publication. Copies of the reviewers’ comments will be sent to authors with identities withheld.

As outlined in the Author Guidelines, the manuscript and files for review must be completely de-identified before submission. De-identification instructions can be found here or requested from cjpe@evaluationcanada.ca.

Peer review is a critical step in publishing scholarly work, and many authors and reviewers have questions about the process. We have prepared information packages for both authors and reviewers participating in CJPE peer review. Please download the resource that is relevant to you. Questions and comments are welcomed at cjpe@evaluationcanada.ca.

The peer review process is a volunteer-driven effort to ensure that emerging scholarship is of utmost quality. We thank our reviewers for donating their time to support the ongoing production and sharing of knowledge in our discipline.

The Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation judges a submission's suitability for publication in the journal (using the ranking scale: not applicable, excellent, good adequate, marginal, poor) as based on these criteria:

  • Significance of topic
  • Literature review
  • Conceptualization
  • Methodology
  • Data analyses
  • Interpretation
  • Clarity of presentation
  • Validity of conclusions
  • Reader interest

Recommendation: (Please indicate your choice in the drop down menu above.

  1. Excellent: accept as is
  2. Accept: Needs minor revisions
  3. Has worth, but reject as is: suggest major revisions and resubmission
  4. Reject: definitely not possible
  5. Not appropriate to the Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation; suggest submission to: ___________________.

The review will also provide a list of recommendations to the author.

Peer Review Process for the R&R Section

For the R&R section, a ranking will be provided on which guidelines are most met by the submission :

  1. Addressing Indigenous traditional knowledge, language, culture, theories, methods, and celebrating traditional ways of knowing, being and doing, and/or or contemporary lifestyles.
  2. Contributing to reconciliation, Nation-to-Nation, Indigenous data sovereignty, United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, or other First Nations and/or Indigenous-developed policy and/or governance frameworks.
  3. Engaging authentically with communities on issues that Indigenous community members, Indigenous governments, or Indigenous organizations want investigated (e.g., education, community wellness, justice, impact of climate change).
  4. Providing communities with solutions to current and upcoming concerns.
  5. Speaking to issues of equity, diversity, inclusion, and sustainability.
  6. Influencing public debate and helping to shape or impact public policy.

Recommendation:

  • Ancestor Tree: This submission is ready for publication
  • Adult Tree: This submission needs light editorial support and minor modifications in order to be ready for a second review and future publication
  • Sapling Tree: This submission needs strong editorial support, may benefit from a little mentoring with an Elder, and would require moderate changes in structure and/or content in order to be ready for a second review and future publication.
  • Seedling Tree: This submission strong and caring editorial and Elder mentoring supports for helping to bring clarity, structure, and/or content inputs into the submission in order to be ready for a second review and future publication.