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.
- 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.
- 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
- 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.
Note: CASS holds the right to reject a submission at any stage from being published.