Review & Editorial Standards

The Journal of Coaching Ethics (JoCE) is committed to thoughtful, rigorous, and ethically grounded scholarship that contributes meaningfully to professional practice, research, and interdisciplinary dialogue.

JoCE encourages a constructive and developmental approach to peer review that supports scholarly quality while engaging authors with professionalism, respect, and intellectual care.

Peer Review Process

JoCE operates a double-blind peer review process for peer-reviewed submissions. Authors and reviewers remain anonymous to one another throughout the review process wherever possible.

All submissions are initially assessed by the Editor-in-Chief for relevance, fit, and overall quality. Suitable manuscripts are then sent for peer review, with the number of reviewers determined according to the submission type.

The journal seeks to maintain a fair, timely, and professionally respectful review process.

Guidance for Reviewers

Reviewers are asked to:

• evaluate manuscripts fairly and objectively
• provide constructive and respectful feedback
• identify strengths as well as limitations
• support the development of high-quality scholarship
• maintain confidentiality throughout the review process
• disclose any conflicts of interest that may affect impartiality

JoCE values scholarship that demonstrates intellectual rigor while remaining accessible, relevant, and engaging to a broad interdisciplinary readership.

Reviewers are encouraged to support authors through feedback that strengthens clarity, coherence, ethical awareness, and scholarly contribution.

Editorial Approach

The Editor-in-Chief, in consultation with the editorial team where appropriate, oversees editorial decisions and the peer review process.

Editorial decisions are based on factors including:

• relevance to the journal’s scope
• scholarly quality
• originality and contribution
• ethical awareness
• clarity and coherence
• suitability for publication

JoCE aims to foster scholarship that is both academically credible and meaningfully connected to professional practice and wider human concerns.

Use of Generative AI

Reviewers should not upload confidential manuscript content into generative AI systems or use AI-generated review reports as substitutes for independent scholarly evaluation.

Any limited use of AI tools for minor language refinement of a reviewer’s own comments should not involve the disclosure of confidential manuscript content.

Reviewers remain fully responsible for the integrity, accuracy, confidentiality, and scholarly quality of their reviews.

Questions

Questions regarding editorial or review processes may be directed to: admin@journalofcoachingethics.com