Peer Review Process

Step 1: Initial Screening for Similarity and AI Evaluation

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

AI Evaluation: An AI-assisted evaluation is conducted to detect content generated or heavily influenced by Artificial Intelligence (AI). Submissions with an AI-generated content score exceeding 21% are flagged. This ensures originality while accounting for possible inaccuracies in AI detection tools.

Step 2: Desk Review

Submissions passing the similarity and AI evaluation proceed to a thorough desk review.

Manuscripts are also evaluated for clarity, conciseness, and adherence to academic writing standards. They must include sections 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, including aerospace, security strategies, cyber and space security, international relations, and political economy; 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 subject experts. These reviews assess whether the manuscript:

  • Demonstrates a clear theoretical/analytical contribution.
  • Exhibits robust argumentation supported by relevant academic citations.
  • Provides findings that add value and are presented in a structured manner.
  • 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 approval, rejection, or revisions (major or minor).
  • Manuscripts requiring revisions in track mode may undergo multiple rounds to meet the journal’s quality standards.

Step 4: Final Decision

CASS reserves the right to reject a submission at any stage, even after peer review, if it is deemed unsuitable for publication.

Note

CASS encourages authors to ensure their manuscripts:

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