Role of Peer Reviewers

Step 1: Initial Screening for Similarity

All submissions are screened using similarity detection software to ensure compliance with the journal’s zero-tolerance plagiarism policy. Submissions with a similarity index above 19% are automatically rejected.

A duly filled and e-signed Authorship, Conflict of Interest & Originality Declaration Form must be submitted by the author(s) before the manuscript proceeds to further review.

If accepted in JASS, the manuscript will not be published elsewhere in the same form or in any language without the publisher’s prior consent.

Withdrawal: Manuscript withdrawal may be requested within seven days of submission, subject to the Editorial Board’s discretion and formal confirmation. A withdrawal request becomes effective only upon receipt of an official letter/email from the Editor/Editor-in-Chief. To safeguard workflow integrity, withdrawal is strictly prohibited once the manuscript has entered the peer-review stage.

Step 2: Desk Review

Submissions passing the similarity proceed to a thorough desk review.

Manuscripts are evaluated for clarity, conciseness, and adherence to academic writing standards. They must include sections (but not necessarily limited to) such as:

  • Introduction
  • Methodology
  • Conceptual Framework/Background
  • Findings
  • Analysis/Discussion
  • Policy Proposals
  • Conclusion (including broader impacts and implications of findings).

This review also assesses whether the manuscript falls within the thematic scope of the journal, and adheres to the journal reference standardisation and syntax requirements.

Step 3: Double-Blind Peer Review

Shortlisted manuscripts are subjected to a double-blind peer review by at least two anonymous subject experts. Reviewers evaluate the manuscript based on:

  • Originality of the work
  • Importance of the research question and identified gap
  • Soundness of the conceptual and methodological framework
  • Quality of analysis and discussion
  • Contribution to existing literature
  • Academic writing quality

Common desk review issues include:

  • Lack of theoretical integration: Citing theories without proper application does not constitute a theoretical contribution.
  • Replication or summary of prior work: Manuscripts must provide novel insights rather than restate existing knowledge. While replication studies hold value, JASS prioritises originality and innovation.

Reviewers may recommend acceptance, rejection, or revisions (major or minor).

Where revisions are required, the reviewers’ evaluations are shared with the authors, who must incorporate all suggested changes. Authors are required to resubmit the revised manuscript with track changes enabled, together with a detailed response letter outlining how each reviewer comment has been addressed.

The editorial team evaluates the revised submission to confirm that all required modifications have been satisfactorily implemented. Manuscripts requiring revision may be subject to multiple review rounds to ensure compliance with the journal’s quality standards.

Once all revisions are approved, the manuscript proceeds to final proofreading, formatting, and layout by the editorial team. Following completion of all technical checks, the final version is scheduled for publication in the relevant issue of the journal.

Step 4: Final Decision

Decision of publication rests with the journal’s Editorial Board based on the recommendations of the peer review evaluations. However, CASS Islamabad reserves the right to reject a submission at any stage from being published.

Note: CASS Islamabad encourages authors to ensure their manuscripts:

  • Are well-structured, concise, and written in an academic style.
  • Follow the journal guidelines.
  • Offer original, high-quality, and forwarding-looking research.
  • Include all required sections and a strong conclusion highlighting the broader implications of the findings.