Editorial Process

Editorial Process

Contemporary Issues in Social Sciences and Management Practices (CISSMP) employs a rigorous peer review process to ensure the quality, originality, and scientific merit of published articles.

Manuscript Submission

  • Authors submit their manuscripts electronically through the online submission system.
  • During submission, authors may be asked to suggest potential reviewers who are experts in the relevant field (optional).

Initial Review

  • The editor-in-chief or designated editor performs an initial review to assess the manuscript's suitability for the journal based on:
    • Scope and focus of the research
    • Scientific rigor and methodology
    • Clarity and presentation
    • Adherence to author guidelines

Peer Review

  • Manuscripts deemed suitable for further consideration are assigned to two or more independent reviewers with expertise in the research area.
  • Reviewers are chosen based on their qualifications and potential for a fair and unbiased evaluation. Authors may be blinded during the review process (double-blind review).
  • Reviewers are asked to evaluate the manuscript based on the following criteria:
    • Originality and significance of the research question
    • Soundness of the methodology and data analysis
    • Accuracy and completeness of the results
    • Appropriateness of the discussion and conclusions
    • Clarity, conciseness, and proper referencing
    • Adherence to ethical guidelines

Reviewer Feedback

  • Reviewers provide written feedback to the editor, including:
    • Recommendation for acceptance, revision, or rejection
    • Specific comments on strengths and weaknesses of the manuscript
  • Authors receive a copy of the reviewers' comments along with the editorial decision.

Revision and Resubmission

  • If revisions are requested, authors are expected to address the reviewers' concerns and resubmit their manuscript within a specified timeframe.
  • The revised manuscript may undergo further review by the original reviewers or additional reviewers at the editor's discretion.

Final Decision

  • The editor-in-chief makes the final decision on manuscript acceptance based on the reviewers' feedback and the revised manuscript.
  • The editor may consult with the editorial board for complex cases.
  • Authors are notified of the final decision, along with any specific instructions for publication.

Timeline

CISSMP strives for a prompt and efficient review process. The time from submission to the initial editorial decision typically takes 8 weeks. The overall review process, including revisions and resubmissions, may take 2-3 months on average.

Confidentiality

CISSMP maintains strict confidentiality throughout the peer review process. The identities of reviewers and authors are kept anonymous unless explicitly agreed upon by both parties.

Appeals

Authors who disagree with the editorial decision may submit a written appeal explaining their rationale. Appeals will be carefully considered by the editor-in-chief, who may consult with the editorial board or additional reviewers.

Commitment to Quality

CISSMP is committed to upholding the highest standards of editorial ethics and peer review. We believe that this rigorous process ensures the publication of high-quality research that advances the field of medical science.