Journal Policies
Indigenization Policy
The Canadian Journal of Native Studies expects all contributors, including scholars, researchers,
and community members to use respectful, reciprocal, ethical, and decolonizing methods. This
will help prevent recolonization and cultural appropriation. The Canadian Journal of Native
Studies requires authors to provide a connection to the Indigenous group or community they
have written about. When possible Indigenous scholars, researchers and individuals who were
directly involved with the manuscript or provided information should be included as authors, co-
authors, or be recognized for their contributions.
Procedures and Policy for Editors, Authors, or Reviewers
Conflicts of interest
The Canadian Journal of Native Studies should be informed of any conflict of interest that
editors, authors or reviewers may have, to determine if a different reviewer is required.
Other interests
An editor, author or reviewer may wish to disclose to the editor a conflict of interest that would
be embarrassing if it became generally known (for example, an academic link or rivalry or a
close relationship with, or a strong antipathy to, a person whose interests may be affected by
publication of a manuscript). Significance may be judged by considering whether an undeclared
conflict of interest could be embarrassing were it to become publicly known after the fact.
Recommended reviewers
We may ask authors to recommend suitable reviewers on submission of their manuscript. When
recommending reviewers, the following points should be considered:
• Recommended reviewers must have sufficient expertise in the relevant subject area.
• Authors should not recommend reviewers with whom they have a conflict of interest, for
example, a close collaborator or colleague.
• Recommended reviewers should not be at the same institute as any of the authors listed
on the manuscript.
• The RSC considers diversity in reviewers to be an important aspect of peer review.
Therefore, wherever possible please consider diversity when recommending reviewers,
for example in terms of career stage, gender, geographic location, race and ethnicity, etc.
• Institutional email addresses should be provided for recommended reviewers, wherever
possible.
Conflict of interest statement
Please note that a conflicts of interest statement is required for all submitted manuscripts. If no
conflicts exist, please state that ‘There are no conflicts to declare' under a conflicts of interest
heading as the last section before your acknowledgements.
Ethical responsibilities
Treat the manuscript as confidential: The manuscript (or its existence) should not be shown to,
disclosed to, or discussed with others.
Reviewers may not submit any manuscript, supplementary information or related materials, such
as reviewer reports, to any generative artificial intelligence (AI) chatbots, such as ChatGPT.
If you feel you are not qualified to review a specific manuscript, it is expected you will
delete/erase the manuscript and inform the editor as soon as possible.
If you do not have the time to review an article, you should contact the editor without undue
delay.
To judge the manuscript objectively and in a timely fashion: Reviewers should not make
personal criticism in their reviews.
To inform the editor if there is a conflict of interest. Specifically, reviewers should not review
manuscripts authored or co-authored by a person with whom the reviewer has a close personal or
professional relationship if this relationship could be reasonably thought to bias the review.
To respect the intellectual independence of authors.
To explain and support their judgements so that editors and authors may understand the basis of
their comments, and to provide reference to published work, where appropriate.
To inform the editor of any similarity between the submitted manuscript and another either
published or under consideration by another journal.
To ensure that all unpublished data, information, interpretation and discussion in a submitted
article remain confidential and not to use reported work in unpublished, submitted articles for
their own research.
To alert the editor if a manuscript contains or appears to contain plagiarised material, falsified or
manipulated data.
Not to retain or copy the submitted manuscript in any form; to comply with data protection
regulations, as appropriate.
Not to use information obtained during the peer review process for their own or any other
person’s or organisation’s advantage, or to disadvantage or discredit others.
Reviewing Procedures
The reviewers' reports constitute recommendations to the editor. The reviewer should consider
the work and assess its suitability for the journal to which it has been submitted using the general
guidance provided in this section.
If the reviewer does not consider the manuscript to be suitable for the Canadian Journal of Native
Studies, they should clearly state this.
In cases where reviewers are unable to assess the manuscript, the editor welcomes suggestions of
alternative reviewers who may be able to assess it. In such instances, the reviewer should provide
details of the alternative reviewer and the editor will send an invitation to review the manuscript.
Reviewers should decline the invitation to review if there is any conflict of interest. If the
reviewer has any ethical concerns regarding the work or the authorship, then these must be
brought to the attention of the editor.
The editor is responsible for all administrative and executive actions and can accept or reject
papers. Once a manuscript has been revised by the authors then it is the editor's duty to see that,
as far as possible, agreement is reached between the authors and reviewers. The reviewers may
need to be consulted again concerning an author's reply to comments, but further review is only
undertaken when necessary.
Adjudication
If there is a notable discrepancy between the reports of the two reviewers, or if the difference
between authors and reviewers cannot be resolved readily, another reviewer may be appointed as
an adjudicator. The role of the adjudicator is to consider the initial reports and provide a final
recommendation on the manuscript based on these reports (and author comments where they
exist) and their own thoughts on the manuscript.
Reviewer anonymity
The anonymity of reviewers is strictly preserved from the authors. Any additional files which are
provided with the reviewer’s comments should be anonymised by the reviewer, for example, the
file properties, or comments/annotations within a document. A reviewer should never
communicate directly with an author.
Reviewers may disclose publicly that they have served as a reviewer for the Canadian Journal of
Native Studies. However, a reviewer must not identify himself/herself as the reviewer of a
specific manuscript nor disclose the contents of the submitted review to any individual or
organization. This expectation of peer review confidentiality and anonymity applies both during
and after the peer review process, without a time limit.
How to write a review
Please aim to submit your review promptly: the suggested deadline for receipt of the review is
given in the invitation email. Please inform the editor as soon as possible if you are not able to
submit your review by the deadline.
When writing a reviewer report please consider:
• Suitability of the article for the journal’s scope
• Impact and novelty of the work
• The length of the article – does it fit within the required word limit?
• Whether the article type is appropriate
• The title – does it reflect the content and contain relevant search terms for
discoverability?
• The abstract – is it self-contained without reference to the main text?
• Which revisions are major concerns preventing publication, and which are minor
concerns the authors can easily resolve, and indicate this in your report
Please answer the specific questions on the reviewer report form; they help to create a
constructive report that will be of the most use to the editor when making their decision.
You don't need to provide detailed comments on language, grammar or spelling errors except
where it makes the meaning unclear.
Please inform the editor if:
• The manuscript contains work which closely resembles other publications, or duplicates
text and/or figures
• You have ethical concerns such as plagiarism
Reviewer recommendations
Along with your comments on the review and answers to the editor’s questions, the report should
contain a recommendation to the editor. Your options may include:
• Accept - The manuscript would be suitable for publication in its current form (after copy-
editing and proofreading).
• Minor revisions - The manuscript could be suitable for publication after the author(s)
have responded to the reviewer comments and made changes where appropriate. These
changes could include referencing another work or a rewrite of a few sections.
• Major revision - The manuscript could be suitable for publication after the author(s) have
responded to the reviewer comments and made changes where necessary. These changes
could include rewriting of several sections.
• Reject - The manuscript is not suitable and it should not be considered further.
Implicit bias in peer review
We all have implicit biases (also known as unconscious bias) – shaped by our environment,
background and experiences – that often lead to biases in our decision making.
In peer review our implicit biases can lead us to make instinctive but incorrect assessments of an
article. For example, a reviewer’s report and recommendation can be unconsciously influenced
by:
• The gender, career stage, country or institute of the author
• The journals in which the author’s previous work was published
• The reviewer’s previous level of awareness of the author and their research
The CJNS is tries to reduce bias in peer review, and we ask our editors, authors and reviewers to
minimise the influence that their implicit biases have on their decisions by:
• Being aware of potential implicit biases that you may have
• Focussing on the research in the article, not the names or locations of the authors
• Slowing down your decision making
• Relying on facts rather than feelings to shape your recommendation
• Considering and reconsidering the reasons for your recommendation
• Using gender-neutral language where appropriate, rather than making assumptions
Peer Reviewer Guide
The purpose of peer review is providing the Editor with the information needed to reach a fair,
evidence-based decision that adheres to the journal’s editorial criteria. Peer-Review reports
should help authors revise their paper such that it may be accepted for publication. Reports
accompanied by a recommendation to reject the paper should explain the major weaknesses of
the research; this will help the authors prepare their manuscript for resubmission.
Confidential comments to the Editor are welcome, but they must not contradict the main points
in the report for the authors.
The following conventions should be respected:
• Reviewers should review the peer review policy of the Canadian Journal of Native
Studies before revealing their reviewer role.
• Reviews should be conducted objectively.
• Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate, as are defamatory/libelous remarks.
• Reviewers should express their views clearly with supporting arguments and references.
• Reviewers should declare any potential competing interests.
• Reviewers should decline to review manuscripts with which they believe they have a
competing interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or
connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.
• Reviewers should respect the confidentiality of material supplied to them and not discuss
unpublished manuscripts with colleagues or use the information in their own work.
• Any reviewer who wants to pass a peer review invitation onto a colleague must contact
the journal in the first instance.
Concerns relating to these points, or any aspect of the review process, should be raised with the
editorial team.
We ask reviewers the following types of questions, to provide an assessment of the various
aspects of a manuscript:
• Key results: Please summarize what you consider to be the outstanding features of the
work.
• Validity: Does the manuscript have flaws which should prohibit its publication? If so,
please provide details.
• Originality and significance: If the conclusions are not original, please provide relevant
references.
• Data & methodology: Please comment on the validity of the approach, quality of the data
and quality of presentation. Please note that we expect our reviewers to review all data,
including any extended data and supplementary information. Is the reporting of data and
methodology sufficiently detailed and transparent to enable reproducing the results?
• Conclusions: Do you find that the conclusions and data interpretation are robust, valid
and reliable?
• Inflammatory material: Does the manuscript contain any language that is inappropriate or
potentially libelous?
• Suggested improvements: Please list suggestions that could help strengthen the work in a
revision.
• References: Does this manuscript reference previous literature appropriately? If not, what
references should be included or excluded? Attempts at reviewer-coerced citation will be
noted against your record in our database.
• Clarity and context: Is the abstract clear, accessible? Are abstract, introduction and
conclusions appropriate?
• Please indicate any particular part of the manuscript, data, or analyses that you feel is
outside the scope of your expertise, or that you were unable to assess fully.
• Please address any other specific questions asked by the editor.
• Reviewers should alert the editor if they wish to make an allegation of publication or
research misconduct, e.g. plagiarism or image manipulation, about an article they are
reviewing.
Before you submit your report, please take a moment to read it through and put yourself in the
place of the authors. How would you feel if you received this report? Would the tone offend you?
Is it courteous and professional? Are there unnecessary personal remarks or antagonistic
comments about the authors or their competitors? Please note that the Editor reserves the right to
remove any inappropriate language from your report.
