Editorial Standards & Review Workflow
Reviewer Guidelines & Peer Review Process
Peer review is the cornerstone of academic publishing. CISR journals employ a strict double-blind peer review model adhering to the highest standards of international scholarly integrity.
1. The Double-Blind Review Workflow
Every submitted manuscript undergoes the following stages:
- Desk Review (1–2 weeks): The Editor-in-Chief reviews the submission for scope fit, academic originality, and formatting compliance. Submissions are screened with Turnitin/iThenticate for plagiarism (similarity < 15%).
- Double-Blind Peer Review (4–6 weeks): Qualified external reviewers with demonstrated expertise evaluate the anonymized paper. Neither authors nor reviewers know each other's identities.
- Editorial Decision: Based on external reports, the Editor renders one of four decisions: Accept, Minor Revisions, Major Revisions, or Reject.
- Revision & Verification (2–4 weeks): Revised manuscripts are verified by original reviewers or the handling editor.
2. Reviewer Evaluation Criteria
- Theoretical Contribution: Does the manuscript advance scholarly understanding beyond existing literature?
- Methodological Rigor: Is the research design robust, clearly documented, and replicable? Are sample sizes and statistical tests appropriate?
- Empirical Evidence & Interpretation: Are empirical claims supported by data? Are limitations transparently acknowledged?
- Clarity & Presentation: Is the writing clear, structured logically, and appropriately referenced?
- Policy & Managerial Relevance: Does the study provide actionable implications for enterprise practitioners or policymakers?
3. Reviewer Code of Ethics (COPE-Aligned)
Reviewers must treat all manuscripts as confidential documents, declare any potential conflicts of interest immediately, provide constructive feedback, and refrain from using unpublished material in their own research.