- » Focus and Scope
- » Section Policies
- » Peer Review Process
- » Publication Frequency
- » Open Access Policy
- » Ethics statement
- » Publication malpractice statement
Focus and Scope
The Journal of Choice Modelling publishes theoretical and applied papers in the field of choice modelling. Papers are expected to either make a methodological contribution to the field, or to present an innovative application. The journal is not limited to one area of study, such as transport or marketing, but invites contributions from across a range of disciplines where the analysis of choice behaviour is a topic of interest. While the majority of papers focus on the use of discrete choice models, contributions looking at other methods are also welcome. Similarly, the Journal of Choice Modelling also welcomes contributions looking at survey design.
As of volume 3, the Journal of Choice Modelling publishes three issues per year, in March, July, and November.
Section Policies
Articles
 Open Submissions |
Indexed |
Peer Reviewed |
Peer Review Process
The Journal of Choice Modelling only publishes papers that have undergone a rigorous process of peer review. The peer review is designed to ensure that only science of the best quality and standards is published. The referees used by the Journal of Choice Modelling play a critical role in maintaining the high standards of the Journal. All manuscripts submitted to the Journal of Choice Modelling undergo a peer review process as outlined below.
Initial manuscript evaluation: Upon submission, each paper will first be evaluated by one of the two editors-in-chief, and the majority of papers will at this stage also be circulated amongst the associate editors. The aim of this stage is to determine whether to proceed with a full peer review or whether the paper should be rejected outright. Manuscripts rejected at this stage are deemed to be insufficiently original, have serious scientific flaws, or are outside the aims and scope of the journal. Manuscripts that are deemed to meet the minimum criteria are then passed on to at least 2 experts for review – generally, each paper is sent to three or four referees so as to guarantee at last two reviews.
Type of Peer Review: The Journal of Choice Modelling employs a single blind reviewing process, where the referees remain anonymous throughout the entire process.
How referees are selected: Whenever possible, referees are matched to the manuscript according to expertise. The pool of potential reviewers is constantly being updated. If an author of a manuscript desires that a particular reviewer not be used, then an email explaining the reason behind the request for an exemption can be provided to the editor. The editor reserves the ultimate right however to select reviewers who are most likely to provide objective commentary on the manuscript.
Editorial decision: Following receipt of the reviews, the editor will decide whether a paper can be accepted as is, whether changes are required, or whether the paper will be rejected without a chance for resubmission. Should there be strong contradiction between individual referee reports, the editor will generally seek further expert opinion on the subject matter. In rare cases where the editor obtains only a single report, a decision to accept, reject or ask the author for a revision may be made on the basis of only one referee’s report. The editor’s decision will be sent to the author with any recommendations made by the referees. Except where changes requested are only minor, a revised version will undergo a further round of reviews. Except in rare circumstances, the same referees will be used in each round. The expectation is that a final decision will be made after no more than two rounds of reviews
Editor’s decision is final: The final responsibility for accepting or rejecting a manuscript lies with the editors. The editors of the journal are obliged to make such determination based on objective evidence, obtained via the peer review process as outlined above.
How long does the review process take? The precise time required for the review process is dependent on the referees and the response taken by authors to referee reports. As a guideline, reviewers are asked to return their reviews within a period of six weeks, and authors are encouraged to return revised papers within six months. This should ensure that a final decision on a paper will be made no later than 15 months after the paper was first submitted. For many papers, this process will be considerably quicker.
Publication Frequency
The Journal of Choice Modelling publishes three issues per year, in March, July, and November.
Open Access Policy
This journal provides immediate open access to its content on the principle that making research freely available to the public supports a greater global exchange of knowledge.
Ethics statement
The academic peer review process provides the foundation for disseminating and promoting good science. As such, standards lie at the centre of ensuring journals maintain and continue good practices and guarantee that best scientific methods are allowed to continue unabated, free from criticism of unethical behaviour. The Journal of Choice Modelling requires all parties associated with the Journal, including authors, journal editors, and peer reviewers to meet minimum standards of ethical behaviour. These include:
Duties of the Editors
1. To make decisions as to whether to publish a manuscript or not based upon the objective peer review process
2. To make decisions based on principles of fair play, so that all parties have an equal likelihood of acceptance, subject to manuscripts meeting minimum standards, as set out in the peer review section of this website.
3. To ensure confidentiality of all parties, in particular reviewers.
4. To disclose any and all conflicts of interest.
5. To be be involved and cooperate with any and all investigations.
Duties of the Reviewers
1. To contribute in a serious and timely manner to the editorial decision process.
2. To maintain confidentiality so that the peer review process is free of accusations of bias and unfairness.
3. To provide objective feedback on reviewed submissions, free from subjective biases.
4. To acknowledge sources used in the review process.
5. To disclose any and all conflicts of interest.
Duties of the Authors
1. Any data used for the purpose of the publication must be ethically stored and retained by the authors and not destroyed.
2. Any manuscript submitted to the Journal of Choice Modelling should be original and not subject to any plagiarism.
3. Articles submitted to the Journal of Choice Modelling should not be such that significant sections of the article have been printed elsewhere and hence are redundant.
4. No papers submitted to the Journal of Choice Modelling should be concurrently under review elsewhere, or have previously been reviewed for publication in another journal (or an explanation has been provided in Comments to the Editor)
5. All listed authors of a manuscript must have played a role in preparing the manuscript and must be aware of its submission. Likewise, individuals who have played a substantial role in preparing a manuscript but who are not listed as authors, should be made aware of the manuscript’s submission and given an acknowledgement.
6. All sources used in preparing a manuscript should be correctly acknowledged and cited in the reference section of the manuscript.
7. Any author involved in a paper must acknowledge any and all conflicts of interest.
8. Known fundamental errors in the paper resulting from analysis or data should be avoided, or acknowledged and not hidden.
Publication malpractice statement
The journal of Choice Modelling is committed to pursuing the highest standards of probity and the elimination of malpractice in research presented within this journal.
It is ultimately the responsibility of the editors-in-chief to ensure that this policy is disseminated to all and followed through.
If any third party believes that malpractice has occurred, they are encouraged to contact the editors-in-chief of the journal, or one of the associate editors. They will take appropriate steps to ensure that individuals reporting allegations of malpractice are not penalised in any way and that they are protected. Likewise, individuals accused of malpractice will be protected against false, malicious or anonymous accusations. Anonymous allegations of malpractice will only be considered if they are of a serious nature and the evidence is sufficient to warrant an investigation and for appropriate action to be taken.
Instances of malpractice that will warrant investigation include:
1. Research in which plagiarism has been committed via copying and passing off the whole or part(s) of another person's work, with or without the originator's permission and without appropriately acknowledging the source
2. The fabrication and/or altering of results and/or evidence
3. The use of unauthorised material or data, or material or data that does not belong to the researcher, or that the researcher does not have permission to use.
Where malpractice has been found to have occurred, the article in question will be removed from the journal and a retraction printed by the journals. Individuals found to have deliberately undertaken actions that result in malpractice will be excluded from publishing in the Journal of Choice Modelling in the future.