Review Process

All submissions will be screened using a similarity detection software. There is zero tolerance for plagiarism. Those with less than 10% similarity will then undergo a Desk Review to choose submissions that are likely to have a realistic chance of being recommended for publication based on the following: be within the thematic scope of the journal; theoretical/analytical contribution; argumentation; relevant academic citations; and findings.

1. A substantial number of submissions do not refer to any theory rather merely mention theories without proper integration. Simply citing a theory does not justify a theoretical contribution – it does not even pass as a sound theoretical basis. Another problem is the replication/summary of prior work without adding any novel insights. Not discarding the value of replication studies, CASS is primarily interested in novel contributions.
2. A well-written/argued paper should also be concise and have a consistent, sound and inter-connected structure. Use of academic writing rather than journalistic writing is encouraged
3. In addition to high quality and innovative research, the manuscript must also include various sections like an introduction, methodology/conceptual framework/background, analysis/discussion/findings, followed by policy proposals and conclusion. In the latter, the manuscript may explore broader impacts and implications of what the specific findings uncover.

Shortlisted submission/s will undergo double-blind Peer Review. During this stage, they may not be approved for publication. However, if they are found suitable for publication, the referee/s may recommend either major or minor changes in the manuscript. The revision process might comprise several rounds.