Peer Review Process

The Community Action and Social Transformation Journal (CAST Journal) is a double-blind peer-reviewed journal. Every paper submitted to CAST Journal for publication is subject to a rigorous peer review process. Peer review in this journal involves an evaluation of the submitted paper by two or more experts with similar competence to the author, aiming to determine the suitability of the paper for publication. This method is employed to maintain high standards of quality and ensure the credibility of published works. The peer review process at CAST Journal proceeds in nine steps as follows:

  1. Submission of Paper
    The corresponding or submitting author submits the paper to the journal through an online system supported by the Open Journal System (OJS). To facilitate authors, CAST Journal may also temporarily accept paper submissions via email.

  2. Editorial Office Assessment
    The submitted paper is first assessed by the editorial team of CAST Journal. The editor evaluates whether the paper fits the journal’s focus and scope. The paper’s composition and formatting are checked against the Author Guidelines to ensure all required sections and styles are included. At this stage, the minimum quality requirements are also assessed, including identifying any major methodological flaws. Every paper passing this stage will undergo a similarity check using Turnitin to ensure compliance with plagiarism standards before being sent to reviewers.

  3. Appraisal by the Editor-in-Chief
    The Editor-in-Chief assesses the paper’s originality, significance, and relevance to the journal. Papers lacking sufficient quality or contribution may be rejected at this stage without being sent for review.

  4. Invitation to Reviewers
    The handling editor invites reviewers who are deemed suitable based on their expertise, research interests, and absence of conflicts of interest. CAST Journal employs a double-blind review system, meaning reviewers do not know the identity of the authors, and authors do not know the identity of the reviewers.

  5. Response to Invitations
    Potential reviewers evaluate the invitation based on their expertise, workload, and potential conflicts of interest. They may accept or decline the invitation. If declining, reviewers may suggest alternative qualified reviewers.

  6. Review is Conducted
    Reviewers carefully read and assess the paper. Initial readings may lead to immediate rejection if major flaws are found. Otherwise, reviewers read the paper multiple times to prepare a detailed, constructive review. Recommendations may include acceptance, rejection, or revision (minor or major).

  7. Journal Evaluates the Reviews
    The Editor-in-Chief and handling editor consider all returned reviews before making a final decision. If reviewer feedback is significantly inconsistent, an additional reviewer may be invited to provide further assessment.

  8. The Decision is Communicated
    The editor communicates the decision to the author, including anonymized reviewer comments. Reviewer feedback is provided constructively to guide the author in revisions if necessary. Reviewers are also informed of the outcome.

  9. Final Steps
    If accepted, the paper proceeds to copyediting and production. If revisions are requested, the author is expected to resubmit a revised version according to reviewer and editor instructions. Revised papers may be re-evaluated by the same reviewers (for major revisions) or directly by the editor (for minor revisions). Once accepted, the article will be published online and made freely available in PDF format.