What is CJE policy toward data availability and data confidentiality?
In 2008, the CJE established a data availability policy which was revised in March 2021. Compliance with this policy is mandatory. The CJE makes data sets, programs, and technical appendices available as supplementary information on the CJE publisher’s site Wiley Online Library.
Section I: Objective of the CJE’s Data Availability Policy
It is CJE policy to publish papers only if the data and code used in the analysis are clearly and precisely documented, and are readily available to any researcher for purposes of replication. Authors of accepted papers that contain any original empirical work, simulations, or experimental work must provide to the CJE, prior to publication, the data, programs, data citations, and other details of the computations sufficient to permit replication. These are discussed below in detail. Any questions regarding this policy should be forwarded to the Managing Editor or the Data Editor.
Section II: Implementation of Data and Code Availability Policy
Prior to acceptance, authors will provide to editors and to reviewers (the latter if requested): i) the data set(s), ii) data availability and provenance statements, describing the origin, location, and accessibility of the data used in the article, iii) the programs used to create any final and analysis data sets from raw data, iv) the programs used to run the final models, and (v) a description sufficient to allow all programs to be run. The data availability statements, the program descriptions, and the data citations need to be provided as a README.pdf file. We strongly encourage Authors to use the README Template prepared by the Social Science Data Editors. Authors should provide clear documentation of all code within the program files themselves, and also through the README pdf. The CJE Data Editor will assess compliance with this policy, and will verify the accuracy of the information prior to acceptance. This may include actual replication of results in the paper by the Data Editor.
The programs and data can be provided in any format compatible with commonly used statistical package or software. Should unusual or costly software be required, the Authors are required to notify the CJE Data Editor. Authors are encouraged to provide data files in open, non-proprietary formats. A master script for programs is strongly encouraged and is a best practice.
The README.pdf must include a listing of all included files and a documentation of the purpose, format, and provenance of each file provided, as well as instructing a user on how replication can be conducted. In particular: i) it should be clear from the README.pdf where to find the specific programs which generate each table and figure in the main text and published appendix; ii) all prerequisites including data, programs, software, (if applicable) operating system should be identified. If applicable, random seeds should be fixed so that Monte Carlo exercises (for example) can be replicated. The CJE strongly discourages tables or figures where values are generated elsewhere and hand-copied into new results (e.g. regression coefficients from a Stata code which are then hand-entered into an Excel code the latter of which generates a figure).
Data should be described in data citations with enough information provided i) to accurately describe the data so that somebody who doesn’t have knowledge of the data can understand its principal and salient characteristics and ii) to be able to re-acquire the data, even if the data is provided. See this link and this link for examples and guidance about Data Citations. For issues arising from restricted access data, see Section II.1 below. Best practices dictate that Authors ensure that a meaningful name or description (label) is available for every variable in provided datasets. It is acceptable to reference publicly available documentation for these items.
The Managing Editor should be notified at the time of submission if the data used in a paper are restricted access or if, for some other reason, the requirements above cannot be met. If some or all of the data are restricted access (as is the case with Statistics Canada or U.S. Census data not in the public domain), and an exemption from this requirement has been approved by the Managing Editor, Authors must still provide a copy of the complete set of programs used to create the final results. The CJE requires this because the criterion for exemption from the data availability policy is based on an expectation that other investigators can, in principle, obtain the data independently. The programs and documentation should be sufficiently complete that after a researcher obtains access to the data (e.g., at a Statistics Canada Research Data Centre, or through the Statistics Canada Data Liberation Initiative) the researcher can create the final set of results with the programs provided by the original Authors. Authors must also provide in their README.pdf file details of how the restricted access data can be obtained by others. This final requirement can be satisfied through the provision of websites. The CJE Data Editor will verify the information, and may contact the data providers identified by the authors. After verification, the README.pdf, programs and submitted data will be posted on the CJE web site.
Additional required information depending on the type of quantitative analysis is detailed in Sections II.1-II.2 below.
Section II.1: Requirements for Experimental Papers
For experimental papers, we expect Authors to supply the following supplementary materials (any exceptions to this policy should be requested at the time of submission):
- The original instructions. These should be summarized as part of the discussion of experimental design in the submitted manuscript, and also provided in full as an appendix at the time of submission. The instructions should be presented in a way that, together with the design summary, conveys the protocol clearly enough that the design could be replicated by a reasonably skilled experimentalist. For example, if different instructions were used for different sessions, the correspondence should be indicated.
- Information about subject eligibility or selection, such as exclusions based on past participation in experiments, college major, etc. This should be summarized as part of the discussion of experimental design within the submitted manuscript although this can appear in a Data Appendix.
- Any computer programs, configuration files, or scripts used to run the experiment and/or to analyze the data. These should be summarized as appropriate in the submitted manuscript and provided in full as an appendix when the final version of a manuscript is sent in. (Data summaries, intermediate results, and advice about how to use the programs are welcome, but not required.)
- The raw data from the experiment should be summarized as appropriate in the submitted manuscript, and included in the data submission. We strongly encourage authors to deposit raw data and instructions separately from other replication materials, in order to provide greater visibility to the author’s work. Sufficient explanation should be made to make it possible to use the submitted computer programs to replicate the data analysis. If the data is subject to confidentiality, best practices can be satisfied by anonymizing the data to prevent identification of specific individuals.
Submission of other information including applications to Institutional Review Boards, consent forms, or Web signup and disclosure forms is best practice.
Section II.2: Requirements for Papers with Self-Conducted Surveys
For self-conducted surveys, we expect the following material to be submitted (any exceptions to this policy should be requested at the time of submission):
- The original survey and (if applicable) any special instructions for answering it.
- Information about subject eligibility or selection, such as exclusions based on past participation in experiments, college major, etc. This should be summarized as part of the discussion of survey design within the submitted manuscript although this can appear in a Data Appendix.
- The raw data from the survey should be summarized as appropriate in the submitted manuscript, and included in the data submission. We strongly encourage authors to deposit raw data and instructions separately from other replication materials, in order to provide greater visibility to the author’s work. Sufficient explanation should be made to make it possible to use the submitted computer programs to replicate the data analysis. If the data is subject to confidentiality, best practices can be satisfied by anonymizing the data to prevent identification of specific individuals.
Submission of other information including applications to Institutional Review Boards, consent forms, or Web signup and disclosure forms is best practice.
Section III: Special Issues
The CJE frequently publishes special issues devoted to a specific topic. Articles in these issues are subject to the policy guidelines above. However, empirical work in these issues that is not original is not subject to the guidelines regarding data and programs. However, their original source should be noted in the README.pdf with an appropriate citation (See Section II).
What is CJE policy regarding conflicts of interest?
The CJE has established a conflict of interest policy that provides guidelines to avoid any conflicts of interest that may arise for editors, authors, and referees.
CJE’s Conflict of Interest Policy and Ethical Guidelines for Authors
The CJE adheres to the ethical guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and the guidelines below follow closely those advocated by COPE and those currently in place at other major economics journals.
Originality: By submitting your paper to the CJE, it is understood that the work is original, unpublished in any language, and not under simultaneous consideration by another journal. Relevant previous work by other researchers and by the author(s) should be appropriately acknowledged and cited. Any form of plagiarism, in part or in whole and including the author's own previous work, will not be tolerated. The CJE reserves the right to use software to detect plagiarism.
Authorship: Authorship should reflect the individual's contribution to the research and to its reporting. Any individual who meets authorship criteria (that is, made a substantive contribution to the research) should be rewarded with authorship. Individuals who made less than a substantive contribution to the research should be listed in the acknowledgement footnote. Any form of guest, gift and ghost authorship is forbidden. Under COPE's definitions, a guest author is one who does not deserve authorship but is listed because of seniority or reputation; a gift author is one who does not deserve authorship but is listed as a favour or in return for payment; and a ghost author is one who deserves authorship but is not listed.
Conflicts of Interest: When submitting a paper, all authors should disclose all sources of financial support for their research. All authors should identify any interested party that provided financial or in-kind support in the form of consultancy fees, retainers, data access, etc. An interested party is an individual or organization that has a stake in the paper for financial, political or ideological reasons. All authors should reveal any paid or unpaid positions in organizations whose financial interests or policy positions are relevant to the submitted paper. If the paper is partly or wholly written under contract with an organization, this fact must be disclosed. The above information should be disclosed for every author at the time of submission. A short statement summarizing the information will be included in the acknowledgment footnote of the published version of the paper. Authors are expected to keep the Journal informed of any changes in their status that could potentially put them in the appearance of conflict between the date of submission and the date of final acceptance of the paper.
Research Involving Humans: Appropriate approval, registration or licensing should be obtained from the relevant ethical board (e.g., the Research Ethics Committee at the author's university) prior to any research that involves humans (or animals). This information should appear in the acknowledgment note of the submitted paper. Steps should be taken to insure the confidentiality of sensitive data.
Sanctions: Review of a submission will be discontinued if the authors have not followed these guidelines. If a published paper is found to be inconsistent with these guidelines then a correction or retraction will be published in the Journal.
CJE’s Conflict of Interest Policy for Editors
In what follows below, the word Editor(s) applies to the Managing Editor, the Co-Editors and the Data Editor of the CJE. A paper submitted by one of the Editors will be handled by another Editor who is not at the same institution. The other Editor will select referees and make all decisions on the paper. The decision process will be handled in such a way that the submitting Editor does not have access to information or correspondence relating to the submission.
If an Editor feels that there is likely to be a perception of a conflict of interest in relation to their handling of a submission, they will declare it to the other Editors, and the paper will be handled in the same way as described above.
An Editor will declare a conflict of interest when a paper is submitted by an author whose relationship with this Editor might create the perception of bias (e.g., in terms of close friendship, conflict, or rivalry). Specifically, an Editor will declare a conflict of interest when a paper is submitted by:
- an author at the same academic institution
- a family member of the Editor
- a current or former co-author of the Editor
- a current or former student of the Editor
- a former doctoral thesis supervisor of the Editor
The above list is indicative but not exclusive; other reasons for conflict of interest between Editor and Author may exist. The Editor who has declared a conflict of interest will not be involved in selecting referees or making any decisions on the paper.
With an initial submission of a paper, a corresponding author may alert the Editors to a potential conflict of interest regarding particular referees. The corresponding author must indicate the nature of the potential conflict of interest. Editors will exercise their discretion in assigning referees to ensure that all reviewers are "at arm's length" to the authors.
CJE’s Conflict of Interest Policy for Referees
A referee may face a potential conflict of interest if one or more of the authors of the paper under review is a colleague at the same institution (department) or is a co-author of the reviewer on other work. Potential for conflict may also exist if the paper under review is authored by a family member, current or former student, or former doctoral thesis supervisor.
The invitation letter to referees will include the following wording: "If you feel there is a potential conflict of interest in your refereeing this paper, please declare it. By accepting this invitation, it is assumed there is no such conflict of interest." Standard policy will be not to use a referee if a conflict of interest has been declared, but the Editors may use their discretion.
What is CJE policy towards open access articles?
To facilitate compliance with open access policies, such as the Tri-Agency Open Access Policy on Publications which requires peer-reviewed journal publications resulting from Tri-Agency grants to be made freely accessible online within 12 months of publication, our publisher offers immediate open access on its Wiley Online Library via an OnlineOpen service. The cost for OnlineOpen is US$3,000, which can be paid by the author, the author's funding agency, or the author's institution. Note that under the Tri-Agency Open Access Policy on Publications, costs associated with open access publishing are considered to be eligible grant expenses and Tri-Agency grants are those financed by any of the three main research granting agencies in Canada: the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC), the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR), and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC). Other research granting agencies (e.g., the Research Councils of the United Kingdom and the Australian Research Council) have similar open access policies.
What is CJE policy towards copyright?
The CJE will only consider papers that have not been previously published, are not currently under consideration elsewhere, and that do not have excessive overlap with other published or submitted material. A working paper that is available to be read or downloaded through the internet may be submitted to the CJE. The CJE requires exclusive rights to your published paper. Therefore, you should submit a paper to the CJE only if you are willing to remove the final version of your paper from internet availability if it is accepted for publication. The CJE views internet availability of an accepted or published paper as a violation of its copyright. The CJE asks for the cooperation of authors in this protection of copyright. Previous versions of the paper may be left on the internet. After a paper has been published in the CJE, the CJE will normally allow subsequent reproduction in edited volumes, substantial reproduction in review articles, and other reasonable use of the material.
Does the CJE have an "appeals" policy for rejected papers?
The Journal is very reluctant to consider appeals of rejected papers. All journals make many Type I errors (i.e. rejecting good papers) and quite a few Type II errors (accepting flawed papers). Fortunately, there is an easy remedy for Type I errors: you can submit your paper to another journal. Economics is a large enough discipline that rejection at any one journal does not impose undue hardship on the author, provided the paper is handled with reasonable speed.
With the CJE, the one exception to this general statement is that some papers focusing on a particularly Canadian issue might not have many alternative outlets of comparable quality. We are very careful with such papers. Ultimately, however, we simply do not have enough editorial time to engage in an appeal process. If there is an obvious crucial misunderstanding on the part of the referee, there might be some value in pointing this out to the editor or co-editor handling your paper. Otherwise, your best bet is to submit elsewhere.