After Submission

After a manuscript is submitted to the Caucasus Journal of Social Sciences (CJSS), it passes through editorial assessment, peer review, revision, and, where accepted, production and publication.

Contents

Initial Editorial Screening

All submissions are first assessed by the editorial team to determine whether they fall within the journal's aims and scope and meet the minimum scholarly, ethical, and technical requirements.

Manuscripts that are outside the journal's scope, insufficiently developed, or inconsistent with the journal's policies may be declined without external peer review.

Back to Contents ↑

Technical and Ethical Checks

Before peer review, the journal may check:

  • compliance with the Author Guidelines;
  • manuscript anonymisation;
  • similarity and possible plagiarism;
  • ethical approval and informed consent, where applicable;
  • funding and conflict-of-interest disclosures;
  • data availability and research-transparency statements;
  • disclosed use of artificial intelligence tools;
  • permissions for third-party material.

The Editorial Office may request corrections or additional information before the manuscript proceeds.

Back to Contents ↑

Double-Blind Peer Review

Manuscripts that pass initial screening are normally evaluated through a double-blind peer-review process by at least two independent subject-matter experts.

The identities of the authors are concealed from the reviewers, and the identities of the reviewers are concealed from the authors.

CJSS does not normally use reviewers suggested by authors. Reviewer selection is the responsibility of the editors.

Back to Contents ↑

Editorial Decisions

After considering the reviewers' reports and independently assessing the manuscript, the editor may issue one of the following decisions:

  • Accept;
  • Accept with Minor Revisions;
  • Major Revisions Required;
  • Reject and Resubmit;
  • Reject.

Reviewer recommendations are advisory. The final decision is made by the Editor-in-Chief or an authorised handling editor.

Back to Contents ↑

Revision Process

Where revisions are requested, authors should submit:

  • a clean revised manuscript;
  • a version showing changes, where requested;
  • a detailed point-by-point response to the editor and reviewers;
  • updated supplementary files or declarations, where applicable.

Authors should address every comment carefully. Where a recommendation is not followed, a clear scholarly explanation should be provided.

Revisions must be uploaded through the existing submission record rather than submitted as a new manuscript.

Back to Contents ↑

Final Decision

A revised manuscript may be assessed by the editor, returned to the original reviewers, or sent to additional reviewers where necessary.

A request for revision does not guarantee acceptance. The final decision is based on the manuscript, reviewer reports, author responses, ethical compliance, and the overall scholarly contribution of the work.

Back to Contents ↑

After Acceptance

Accepted manuscripts proceed to editorial review, copyediting, reference and metadata checks, formatting, typesetting, author proofreading, and final publication.

Authors are expected to review proofs carefully and return corrections within the deadline stated by the Editorial Office.

Back to Contents ↑

Full Peer Review Policy

For complete information about reviewer selection, confidentiality, conflicts of interest, review criteria, editorial decisions, appeals, editor submissions, and exceptions to peer review, please consult the journal's Peer Review Policy.

Back to Contents ↑