Manuscript Submission Guidelines


Please review the instructions on this page before you submit your manuscript in ScholarOne.

ScholarOne provides downloadable guides, FAQs, and other resources for authors. If you need technical assistance using ScholarOne, contact ScholarOne customer care.

If you have any questions, contact the editorial office.

INVITED REVISIONS

If you are submitting an invited revision (including conditional acceptances), review the additional instructions for invited revisions and revision notes.

MANUSCRIPTS RELATED TO PRIOR SUBMISSIONS

If your manuscript is not an invited revision but you have submitted a version of the manuscript before or there is significant overlap with a previous submission to JCR, review the additional instructions for manuscripts related to prior submissions.

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPTS

The instructions on this page are for the review process only. If you are submitting the final materials for an accepted manuscript, review our instructions for accepted manuscripts.


Table of Contents


Editorial Objectives
Appropriate Types of Manuscripts
Policy on Related and Overlapping Publications
Research Integrity and Ethics
    •  Data Collection Information

    •  Replicability
    •  Institutional Review Board Approval
    •  Data Archiving
    •  Data Maintenance Policy
    •  Supplementary Documentation

    •  Plagiarism Check
Overview of the Review Process

Suggestions for the Editorial Team

Conflicts of Interest
Prior Related Submission to JCR
Correspondence

Manuscript Preparation
    •  Proofreading and Copy Editing
    •  Author Anonymity
    •  Manuscript Length

    •  Manuscript Formatting

    •  Footnotes

    •  Figures

Manuscript Content
    •  Manuscript Title
    •  Author Note
    •  Contribution Statement
    •  Abstract and Keywords
    •  Appendixes
    •  References
Invited Revisions
    •  Revision Notes
Web Appendix
Requests for Clarification
Further Information for Authors


Editorial Objectives


JCR publishes empirical, theoretical, and methodological papers of the highest quality on topics in consumer research. The overriding criterion for publication in JCR is that the paper should advance understanding of consumer behavior or the conduct of consumer research. Typically, a paper suitable for JCR should attempt to advance, deepen, or repudiate existing published theory about consumption, and offer empirical support for its claims.

JCR is an interdisciplinary journal. It encourages a variety of disciplinary perspectives, methods, conceptual approaches, and substantive problem areas. In general, JCR is interested in publishing articles derived from orientations and paradigms as diverse as those of the readership base.* In all cases, rigorous paradigm-appropriate inquiry is imperative. At the same time, papers should be intelligible to scholars in consumer research generally.

*JCR is governed by an 11-member policy board representing the following organizations:

American Anthropological Association
American Association for Public Opinion Research
American Association of Family and Consumer Sciences
American Marketing Association
American Sociological Association
American Statistical Association
Association for Consumer Research
Institute for Operations Research and the Management Sciences

International Communication Association
Society for Consumer Psychology (APA Division 23)
Society for Personality and Social Psychology (APA Division 8)


Appropriate Types of Manuscripts


The following types of manuscripts are appropriate:
  • In general, all manuscripts dealing with the acquisition, consumption, and disposition of goods and services construed broadly, as well as the intra-individual, interpersonal, social, and cultural processes and effects related to these activities.
  • Empirical studies that report quantitative and/or qualitative theory and evidence illuminating a particular consumer behavior phenomenon or set of phenomena.
  • Organizational and societal consumer behavior research in which the unit of analysis is broader than the individual.
  • Reassessments of previously reported research findings or insights, with possible refinements.
  • Exploratory or descriptive research of unusually high generative potential in that the paper establishes groundwork for further theoretical research, defines the boundaries of the research issue, or raises important questions that can be investigated in future research activities.
  • Theoretical, conceptual, or perspective articles of unusual breadth or depth that introduce new concepts, explanations, and viewpoints regarding some important aspect of consumer behavior, including deductive, inductive, analytical, critical essay, and other approaches.
  • Review articles of unusual integrative vision offering a unified presentation of previous literature that contributes to the field by identifying significant gaps in knowledge, synthesizing previously disparate findings, integrating research streams from different disciplines, and/or identifying research priorities and future developments.
  • Meta-analyses of prior empirical findings on a particular consumer behavior topic that effectively summarize current evidence on conceptual and substantive issues and identify the most pressing and most novel directions for future research.
  • Methodological expositions that offer significant advances in the state-of-the-art research tools or philosophy-of-science issues pertaining to consumer research, with specific illustrations and implications for the conduct of consumer research.

Policy on Related and Overlapping Publications


Manuscripts are evaluated in large measure on the relative magnitude of their contribution to the literature. It is imperative therefore that the editors be made aware of related research that is not yet readily known. Hence, authors submitting a manuscript for review should clearly indicate in their confidential cover letter to the editor the relation of the manuscript to any other manuscripts currently under review, in press, or recently published by the authors. The editorial office may contact you to ask to see a copy of one or more of these other papers.

Failure to provide these references in the
confidential cover letter to the editor may lead to withdrawal of a manuscript under review or, if published, to retraction of the article, if the work is determined to be materially similar to submission or publication at another journal.

JCR does not publish papers that have been previously published (in almost all cases). Occasionally, an author may wish to submit a manuscript that has been published elsewhere, in whole or in part. JCR will consider such a manuscript for publication only if it meets ALL of the following conditions:
  • At the time of manuscript submission, JCR receives written authorization from the holder of the copyright to publish any portion of the material in question.
  • The other outlets for the material in question are sufficiently inaccessible to the general JCR readership such that JCR will perform a real service to its readership by making the material more readily available.
  • The form of the potential JCR article differs substantially from the other forms in which the material is available in terms of length, positioning, type of analysis (if any), and/or the nature of the discussion. That is, the JCR article must offer some “value added” over and above the other presentations.
  • The manuscript is submitted on a timely basis (i.e., not long after the appearance of the material elsewhere and preferably prior to actual publication elsewhere).
  • The manuscript is accompanied by the other versions of the material available to allow editorial judgment of the three preceding points.
  • The manuscript is clearly intended to make an independent contribution to the consumer research literature and can in no way be construed as a mere promotional vehicle.

Research Integrity and Ethics


When submitting manuscripts for review, authors must include a data collection paragraph. This information is updated with each revision and included in the final accepted version of the manuscript.

As additional precautions to safeguard research integrity, we run a plagiarism check on every submission and authors are encouraged to include supplementary materials (e.g., study stimuli, survey instruments) in a separate file during the review process. When a manuscript is accepted, these supplementary materials are published as a web appendix. A JCR-paid initiative also encourages authors to register their data with a third-party archiving service.

JCR's Policy Board is responsible for the development and implementation of editorial direction and policy. The Policy Board and editors have implemented the following policies and practices to promote research integrity and professional ethics:
The Center for Open Science endorses the Standard Reviewer Statement for Disclosure of Sample, Conditions, Measures, and Exclusions for peer reviewers to request of authors the disclosure of data collection and analysis necessary to conduct their peer-review duties. The content of such a disclosure does reflect JCR policy and, generally, proper scientific practice. That is, authors should report the entirety of their methods, including all measures, conditions, and data exclusions. Authors should also indicate how samples were chosen. Authors may have run a power test or simply chosen a specific number of participants. Our concern here is that authors do not look for trends in the data and then add participants in the hopes of uncovering significant results. Please address these issues in your manuscripts.

The Committee on Publication Ethics has guidelines and additional information on research integrity.

In an appendix to their inaugural editorial, Darren Dahl, Eileen Fischer, Gita Johar, and Vicki Morwitz discuss the importance of research integrity and provide a summary of various policies and practices that ensure continued publication of research that is accurate and provides a solid contribution on which other scholars may build.

An earlier editorial by Mary Frances Luce, Ann McGill, and Laura Peracchio addresses research integrity and broader ethical issues related to scientific research: Promoting an Environment of Scientific Integrity: Individual and Community Responsibilities


Data Collection Information


Enter your data collection paragraph in the relevant field during Step 5 of the submission process (d
o not include the data collection paragraph in the manuscript file during the review process).

Include university names and other identifying details; the data collection paragraph will be accessible to the editor and associate editor but will not be shared with the reviewers.

Write in the third person (e.g., "The authors jointly analyzed the data.") and provide the following information for each study:
  • Where the data were collected
  • When the data were collected
  • Who collected the data
  • Who analyzed the data
If a research assistant or lab manager collected data under the supervision of one of the authors, this should be stated in the data collection paragraph. However, authors are not required to provide the names of research assistants or lab managers.

SAMPLE DATA COLLECTION PARAGRAPHS

Sample 1

The first author supervised the collection of data for the first study by research assistants at the University of Chicago Decision Research Lab in the autumn of 2011. The first and second authors jointly analyzed these data. The first and second authors jointly managed the collection of data for study 2 using the Qualtrics panel described in the methods section in the spring of 2012. These data were analyzed jointly by all three authors with support of a statistical staff member at the University of Chicago.

Sample 2

The first author conducted all of the in-person fieldwork herself from autumn of 2007 until spring of 2009. The second author acted as confidante throughout the process and visited the field site twice. Both authors conducted the online fieldwork independently and equally as active social media participants. Data were discussed and analyzed on multiple occasions by both authors using the first author’s field notes, photographs, video, and artifacts, and both authors’ online notes, screen captures, and text files. The final ethnography was jointly authored.

Replicability


For manuscripts incorporating experimental methods, the manuscript should provide sufficient details on research methodology so that it can be replicated (e.g., information on sample, procedure, data screening rules, statistical models, effect sizes reported as specifically as possible for significant effects).

Institutional Review Board Approval


For manuscripts incorporating primary data collection (e.g., experiments, surveys, interviews), the human subjects research reported must be exempted or approved by an Institutional Review Board (IRB) unless no author on the manuscript is affiliated with an institution that has an IRB or its equivalent.

Data Archiving


Authors are encouraged to provide their data (as applicable) to the broader research community by uploading data files to an open-access third party data repository such as Dryad at any time during the review process. JCR will reimburse the cost to authors of utilizing Dryad, but there is no requirement to post your data.

If you choose to upload your data, it is your responsibility to obtain all necessary permissions to publicly post your data.

Data Maintenance Policy


Authors of manuscripts that report data-dependent results will make available, upon request only, exact information regarding their procedures, stimuli, and data for five years after the date of publication for the benefit of researchers interested in replicating or extending these results. However, JCR encourages authors to make their information available beyond the mandatory five years.

Exceptions will be made for identifiable or proprietary data. Authors must request such an exception and state the basis for it in the first version of a submission in which the relevant data appear. This request must normally be made at the time of the initial submission, although a request pertaining to data added in revision is allowable when the relevant revision is submitted. Should the manuscript be accepted or offered revision, the editor will address the request in the decision letter.

Supplementary Documentation


Authors must provide sufficient information in their manuscripts about their research procedures, measures, and descriptive and summary results to enable reviewers to make informed judgments about the quality of the research.

All authors should thus be prepared to submit (only if requested) an additional file containing summary tables (e.g., correlations, analysis of variance summaries, means and standard deviations), scales or measures with reliability and validity assessment information, sample stimuli or instructions to respondents, interviewers, or observers, or procedures used to interpret textual data.

Supplementary material that repeats verbatim manuscript content should not be sent. The overall purpose of this recommendation is not to make the process more difficult but rather to decrease the number of revisions required as a result of matters that seem unclear.


Plagiarism Check


The editorial office runs a plagiarism check on every submission using iThenticate. JCR considers “self-plagiarism” (instances in which authors borrow from their own previously published work without the proper citation) a form of plagiarism.

Plagiarism.org has helpful information and links to other resources about plagiarism
.


Overview of the Review Process


All submitted manuscripts are evaluated by an editor to determine suitability for review at JCR.
However, we do not preview abstracts or provide pre-submission assessments of the suitability of manuscripts for possible publication.

Our review process is double-blind:
  • Authors do not know the identities of the associate editor and reviewers
  • Reviewers do not know the identities of the associate editor and authors
  • The editor and associate editor know the identities of the authors and reviewers
The general review process is as follows:
  • The managing editor reviews the submission for adherence to requirements
  • The editor in chief assigns an editor; each editor (including the editor in chief) handles approximately one-fourth of all submissions
  • The editor assigns an associate editor (AE) and selects three reviewers
  • The AE has three days to confirm the assignment and suggest alternate reviewers to the editor
  • The manuscript is sent to the reviewers who evaluate its strengths and weaknesses, make recommendations to the editor, and provide comments for the authors
  • The AE prepares a report to the authors assessing, integrating, and prioritizing the reviewers' concerns, and makes a recommendation to the editor
  • The editor determines the final disposition of the manuscript and prepares a decision letter
  • The editor's decision letter is emailed to the authors and reviewers (the blinded AE report and the blinded individual reviews are attached)
Reviewers advise the editor and the AE about potential weaknesses in the manuscript, but the editor and the AE decide whether the reviewers' concerns are serious or not. Reviewers are asked to make a recommendation for disposition of the paper, but their recommendations are not “votes.” For example, a reviewer might recommend acceptance but also note a shortcoming in the work that the AE and editor believe deeply undermines the contribution of the research. Or, a reviewer might recommend rejection based primarily on a legitimate shortcoming for which another member of the review team might propose a workable solution. As these examples illustrate, specific comments on the work are the key component of each review, not the reviewer's recommendation per se.

By following this process, we expect to make sound decisions on all manuscripts and provide consistently thorough, constructive, and fair reviews of all manuscripts. We seek to provide authors with an understanding of the perceived strengths and weaknesses of their manuscript, the basis for the decision, and advice on how to proceed.

Our instructions for reviewers contain additional information about the review process.

Suggestions for the Editorial Team


The editor in chief selects the editor for each manuscript and authors should not request a specific editor. However, authors are encouraged to suggest up to three associate editors and five reviewers they consider most appropriate for their manuscript.

Please make these suggestions in your confidential cover letter to the editor (not in the manuscript itself) and provide brief explanations. We may not invite these people to serve on the review team (depending on availability and other factors), but it is useful to see which associate editors and reviewers the authors believe would be most knowledgeable about their manuscripts, both in terms of substance and methods used.

Do not suggest people who have already seen the manuscript, nor anyone with whom you might have a conflict of interest.


Conflicts of Interest


Authors should mention all possible conflicts of interest in their cover letter to the editor.

A conflict of interest (COI) is any relationship that might bias or give the appearance of bias in reviewer assessments or editorial decisions, e.g., current or recent former colleagues, co-authors on other work, advisers, students, close friends or relations, or anyone who has seen or provided comments on earlier drafts of the manuscript.

See our Conflict of Interest Policy.


Prior Related Submission to JCR


If your manuscript is not an invited revision but you have submitted a version of the manuscript before (i.e., the editor provided a "straight reject," "reject and submit new," or "desk reject" decision) or there is significant overlap with one of your prior submissions to JCR:
  • It must be submitted as a new manuscript
  • Revision notes are not required
  • You must explain the relationship between the new submission and the prior submission in your confidential cover letter to the editor
  • You must disclose the previous manuscript number in your confidential cover letter to the editor (regardless of the editor's previous decision)
Note: You may provide revision notes (choose the "Supplementary File NOT for Review" file designation when uploading the revision notes file during Step 2 of the submission process). However, the file will only be accessible to the editor and associate editor and will not be shared with reviewers.

Correspondence


Editors cannot discuss the review process directly (by email, phone, or in person) with authors. Email all correspondence about your manuscript to the editorial office.

The submitting author should communicate with the editorial office on behalf of all authors during the review process and is expected to coordinate with co-authors as necessary.


Manuscript Preparation


JCR manuscripts are judged not only on the depth and scope of the ideas presented but also on whether they can be read and understood by our readers. Please read the journal to familiarize yourself with the types of manuscripts we publish. Our subscribers have varied backgrounds, so gear your manuscript to an interdisciplinary audience.

Proofreading and Copy Editing


Proofread your manuscript carefully before submission and consider hiring a copy editor. Ensure all comments among authors have been removed, all tracked changes have been accepted or rejected, and that the “track changes” feature has been turned off.

If you need professional assistance preparing your manuscript for submission (English-language copy editing, general writing, and language or translation issues), consider the following:
Note: These are merely suggestions and use of these professional editing services does not guarantee publication. Your university might have a list of trusted editorial specialists as well.

Author Anonymity


Do not identify yourself or your university affiliation in your manuscript during the review process. However, author identities should not be omitted from the references (if applicable).

Note:
  • Do not include the author note or the data collection paragraph in the manuscript file (each of these items must be entered into the appropriate field during the submission process)
  • In the methods sections, where data collection and participant pools are discussed, use terms such as “large public university” instead
  • If your manuscript is accepted for publication, the final version should be updated to include identifying information that was omitted during the review process

Manuscript Length


Authors should strive for economy and clarity when preparing manuscripts for JCR. The contribution to knowledge relative to the length of the manuscript is a key criterion in the editorial review process.

Although the typical manuscript submitted to JCR ranges from 35 to 40 double-spaced pages, shorter manuscripts are also welcome. In some instances, a manuscript may require a longer exposition because of the nature of the manuscript’s objectives or research approach (e.g., development of a new theory, presentation of a series of related experiments, ethnographic research). In such cases, manuscripts ranging from 40 to 60 total double-spaced pages will be considered.

Manuscripts exceeding 60 pages may be considered for publication. However,
authors of longer manuscripts should be cognizant that acceptance of such manuscripts rests on editorial judgment of their greater relative contribution to knowledge.

If you would like to submit a manuscript longer than 60 pages:
Note: The 60-page limit refers to the total number of pages comprising the main text along with appendixes, references, tables, and figures; the title, contribution statement, abstract, and keywords are not counted in the page limit.

Manuscript Formatting


Your manuscript file must adhere to the following formatting requirements:

  • Do not number the pages (ScholarOne will number the pages when converting the file to a blinded PDF)
  • The main text must be in single-column format, double spaced, in Times New Roman 12 font
  • There must be one-inch margins on all sides
  • The manuscript must be left justified
  • Use letter format (not A4 or international)
  • Nothing should be underlined
  • There should be no endnotes
  • Do not include a running head
  • Tables and figures should be placed in the body of the manuscript during the review process
Our style sheet contains more detailed information about manuscript formatting, including guidelines for statistical reporting.

If you need assistance formatting your manuscript, please consult your university support staff.

Footnotes


You may use footnotes, which appear at the bottom of the given page (not to be confused with endnotes, which appear at the end of the manuscript and are not allowed at JCR).

Create notes that are linked to the text using the footnote function on your word processor so that the footnotes are automatically and accurately renumbered when you make changes.

Use footnotes sparingly. If you have extensive footnote-like material, it should be included in an appendix instead.


Figures


High-resolution images are not required during the review process, and authors are strongly encouraged to include lower-resolution images during the review process in order to reduce the manuscript file size and streamline uploading or downloading.

Figures must be included in the main manuscript file during the review process. If your manuscript is accepted for publication, separate figure files will be required and higher-resolution images can be submitted at that time.

It is your responsibility to ensure that you have received all necessary permissions for figures included in your accepted manuscript.
Our publisher, Oxford University Press (OUP), provides detailed guidelines to help authors determine when permission is needed to use third-party content and answer common questions pertaining to the process of obtaining permissions. See the "Rights and permissions guidelines for authors" section of OUP's Rights and Permissions webpage.

If you need assistance resizing the figures in your manuscript, please consult your university support staff. Detailed instructions are also available from Microsoft and How-To Geek.

Manuscript Content


The manuscript file must include the following items, in order:
If you are also submitting revision notes or a web appendix, these items must be submitted as separate files.

Manuscript Title


Enter your manuscript title in the relevant field during Step 1 of the submission process. It must also be include in the manuscript file (before the contribution statement).

Keep your title concise and clear; many titles can be shortened. Use descriptive terms and phrases that accurately highlight the core content of the manuscript.

Titles are an important mechanism for drawing
a wide variety of potential readers to your manuscript if it is accepted.
Online indexing databases and search engines such as Google Scholar and Web of Science often use titles to categorize and display articles, and the title may therefore influence whether scholars will read an article. A well-constructed and informative title should make your article discoverable to a larger number of scholars, which could lead to more citations.


Author Note


Enter your author note in the relevant field during Step 5 of the submission process (do not include the author note in the manuscript file during the review process).

Denote the corresponding author and provide the following information for each author:
  • Full name
  • Email address
  • Current position
  • Current affiliation (department and university/institution)
  • Acknowledgments of financial, technical, or other assistance
Authors should verify the order of author names before submitting their manuscript and update the information in the author note with each revision.

If the manuscript is based on the lead author's dissertation, the author note should state this (and should not state that all authors contributed equally to the article) if the article is eligible for the Ferber Award.

See our sample author note.


Contribution Statement


Every new submission must include a contribution statement (maximum of 350 words).
Enter your contribution statement in the relevant field during Step 5 of the submission process. It must also be included in the manuscript file (before the abstract).

The purpose of the contribution statement is for you to provide a clear and concise understanding of the primary contribution provided by your manuscript. The statement should:

1) clearly articulate the ways in which the research provides insight to a consumer-relevant question;
2) situate your research within the existing knowledge on the topic; and
3) explain what the research adds to what is already known about the consumer-relevant problem

Your contribution statement will be shared with the editor, associate editor, and reviewers during the review process to help the review team to understand the intended contribution. Contribution statements will not appear in published articles.

Please see our contribution statement instructions for additional information and sample contribution statements.

Abstract and Keywords


Enter your abstract (maximum of 200 words) in the relevant field during Step 1 of the submission process. It must also be included in the manuscript file (after the contribution statement), followed by a list of three to six keywords in a separate paragraph.

Your abstract should substantively summarize your manuscript and address the following:

  • Motivation/Problem (what gap does your research fill?)
  • Approach/Methods
  • Results/Findings
  • Implications and Conclusions
Note:
  • Do not include any citations, tables, or figures in your abstract
  • Do not include any information that is not in your article
  • Avoid using "we" or expressions like "we found that consumers..." (omit "we found that" and just say "consumers..." instead)
During the review process, the abstract should contain enough information about your manuscript to allow potential reviewers to judge whether they have enough expertise to review the manuscript. The abstract should also be engaging enough for them to want to review it.

In crafting your abstract, recognize that JCR is an interdisciplinary journal and we aspire to being read and cited by scholars in a wide variety of disciplines. Make the writing in your abstract accessible so that the importance of your article will be transparent to a wide variety of scholars. Include terms and descriptions that will allow your article (if accepted) to be found by scholars interested in your theories, substantive findings, and methods. For instance, a manuscript investigating processing style by comparing adults across the age span should reference both the relevant theories of processing and the operationalization through age, so that scholars with either interest would be drawn to the work.

See our sample abstract.

Appendixes


If appendixes are provided, they should appear on a new page before the references.

Multiple appendixes are labeled with letters (Appendix A, Appendix B, etc.). A single appendix is labeled without the letters (Appendix).


References


Each reference should be cited in the text at an appropriate place. Do not include references that have no corresponding citations in the text, and be sure that you have provided the complete reference for every in-text citation.

Note:
  • Author identities should be left in the references (if applicable)
  • There must be a reference for every citation and a citation for every reference
  • Detailed instructions on formatting references are provided in our style sheet
See our sample references.

Invited Revisions


JCR does not impose deadlines on invited revisions (including conditional acceptances). Authors should take the time required to make all necessary revisions before submitting their revised manuscript; the quality of revision is more important than the timeframe for resubmission. To maintain continuity, the same AE and reviewers are usually assigned to invited revisions even if the editor changes (e.g., due to an editor's term ending).

If you are submitting an invited revision of a manuscript that was submitted in our legacy system:
  • Submit the revised manuscript as a new submission in ScholarOne (a new manuscript number will be assigned in ScholarOne)
  • Choose the "Revision notes" file designation when uploading your revision notes during Step 2
  • Provide the previous manuscript number when prompted during Step 5 and in your confidential cover letter to the editor
  • The managing editor will provide the editor, associate editor, and reviewers with the files and review materials from the previous round
If you are submitting an invited revision of a manuscript that was submitted in ScholarOne:
  • Log in to your author account and create a revision in the "Manuscripts Awaiting Revision" queue
  • When prompted to enter a response to the editor's decision from the previous round, you may enter your revision notes in the response field or attach a file
Note:

Revision Notes


If you are submitting an invited revision, you must also submit revision notes providing an overview of how you addressed the broad issues and concerns summarized in the editor's decision letter and the AE report.

Your revision notes should explain any changes that you made in your revised manuscript that are not apparent in the manuscript itself.
Use the editor's decision letter and the AE report as your guide, and use the reviews for more detail on issues raised by the AE.

Your revision notes will be shared with the entire review team. However, keep in mind that your goal is to win the support of the editor and the AE, not all reviewers on all details.
You may provide very brief separate comments to individual reviewers in your revision notes, but this is not necessary; everything can go into the overview. The AE’s job is to assess, integrate, and prioritize reviewer comments, and assigning an AE to each manuscript ensures that authors are not pulled in multiple directions to please a disparate set of reviewers.

Note:
  • Do not include a signature or any identifying information in your revision notes file
  • Keep your revision notes brief (no more than eight pages) and avoid repetition
  • Do not respond or refer to trainee reviews in your revision notes
  • Do not refer to page numbers in the manuscript file when discussing changes you made to your manuscript (the page numbers may change after manuscript conversion)
  • Do not number the pages in the revision notes file (ScholarOne will number the pages when converting the file to a blinded PDF)

Web Appendix


Authors are encouraged to submit a supplementary document (i.e., a web appendix) containing stimuli, instruments, replication studies, or additional information not contained in the manuscript.
The contents of the web appendix should be supplements or enhancements only (not content essential to the understanding of the article).

Upload your web appendix file during Step 2 of the submission process (select the "Web Appendix" file designation) and select "Yes" when prompted during Step 5.
The web appendix will be included (after the manuscript) in the blinded PDF that is provided to reviewers.

Note:
  • Format your web appendix in the same manner as a manuscript
  • Include the article title and a brief paragraph describing the contents of the web appendix
  • Do not include author names or other identifying information in your web appendix during the review process
  • The web appendix should be mentioned in-text where relevant, e.g., "See the web appendix for additional details"
  • Do not number the pages in the web appendix (ScholarOne will number the pages when converting the file to a blinded PDF)
If your manuscript is accepted, the web appendix will accompany the online version of your article and can include any materials that are not appropriate for the print version because of space constraints. Upon acceptance, it is your responsibility to ensure that you have received all necessary permissions for figures and other third-party content included in your web appendix. OUP provides detailed guidelines to help authors determine when permission is needed to use third-party content and answer common questions pertaining to the process of obtaining permissions (see the "Rights and permissions guidelines for authors" section of OUP's Rights and Permissions webpage).

Requests for Clarification


If something in the editor’s decision letter or the review materials is unclear or inconsistent, authors are encouraged to email questions to the editorial office to request clarification from the editor before revising their manuscript.

Editors cannot discuss the review process directly with authors. All correspondence about your submission must be emailed to the editorial office (not the editor) and should come from the designated corresponding author on the manuscript.

The managing editor will upload your written clarification request to the peer review system where it will only be visible to the editor and the associate editor (reviewers will not see authors' clarification requests). The editor will decide whether to consult with the associate editor, and the editor will provide a response that will be archived in the system (reviewers will not see the editor's response).


Requiring written requests for clarification is not meant to act as a barrier. This process ensures good record-keeping, gives the editor sufficient time to reflect on answers, and allows the editor to consult with the AE before responding.

Note: JCR does not provide or approve formal revision plans. The editor will consider your request and try to provide the best possible feedback. However, clarification from the editor does not guarantee a positive outcome and should not be mistaken as a signal of approval of a specific revision plan. If a revised manuscript is submitted, it will be evaluated by the entire review team.


Further Information for Authors


ScholarOne Author Support
Instructions for Accepted Manuscripts
Style Sheet (for accepted manuscripts)
Ferber Award (for dissertation-based manuscripts)
Open Access Publishing

If you have any questions, contact the editorial office.