Peer Review Process
CAP Peer Review Process is based on the principles of fairness, confidentiality, academic integrity, and independent scholarly evaluation.
Contemporary Accounting Perspectives (CAP) applies a rigorous double-blind peer-review process to ensure the quality, originality, methodological soundness, and scholarly contribution of all published manuscripts.
All submissions are evaluated objectively and confidentially by independent experts in the relevant field. CAP is committed to maintaining transparency, editorial independence, ethical publishing standards, and academic integrity throughout the review process.
Double-Blind Peer Review
CAP uses a double-blind peer-review model in which the identities of authors and reviewers are concealed from each other during the review process. This approach is intended to ensure impartiality, minimize bias, and support objective academic evaluation.
Author Identity Hidden
Author identities are concealed from reviewers to support objective evaluation.
Author identities are concealed from reviewers to support objective evaluation.
Reviewer Identity Hidden
Reviewer identities are not disclosed to authors during or after the review process.
Reviewer identities are not disclosed to authors during or after the review process.
Peer Review Workflow
1
Editorial Screening
The manuscript is initially evaluated by the Editor-in-Chief and/or Associate Editor.
The manuscript is initially evaluated by the Editor-in-Chief and/or Associate Editor.
↓
2
Reviewer Assignment
At least two independent reviewers are invited according to the manuscript’s subject area and expertise.
At least two independent reviewers are invited according to the manuscript’s subject area and expertise.
↓
3
Independent Review
Reviewers evaluate originality, methodology, academic contribution, ethical compliance, structure, and clarity.
Reviewers evaluate originality, methodology, academic contribution, ethical compliance, structure, and clarity.
↓
4
Editorial Decision
The editorial decision is made based on reviewer reports and editorial assessment.
The editorial decision is made based on reviewer reports and editorial assessment.
Possible Editorial Decisions
Accept
The manuscript is accepted for publication with or without minor editorial revisions.
The manuscript is accepted for publication with or without minor editorial revisions.
Minor Revision
Limited revisions are requested before a final editorial decision.
Limited revisions are requested before a final editorial decision.
Major Revision
Substantial revisions are required and the manuscript may undergo further review.
Substantial revisions are required and the manuscript may undergo further review.
Reject
The manuscript is not considered suitable for publication in CAP.
The manuscript is not considered suitable for publication in CAP.
Review Timeline
CAP aims to complete the review process in a timely manner while maintaining the quality and fairness of the evaluation. The following timeframes are indicative and may vary depending on reviewer availability and the number of revision rounds.
Initial Screening
Within 2 weeks of submission.
Within 2 weeks of submission.
Reviewer Evaluation
Reviewers are asked to submit their reports within 4 weeks.
Reviewers are asked to submit their reports within 4 weeks.
First Decision
Usually within 8–10 weeks of submission.
Usually within 8–10 weeks of submission.
Revisions
Authors are expected to return revised manuscripts within 4 weeks (minor) or 8 weeks (major).
Authors are expected to return revised manuscripts within 4 weeks (minor) or 8 weeks (major).
Reviewer Selection Principles
Reviewers are selected based on their academic expertise, publication background, research interests, and professional competence in the relevant subject area. CAP aims to avoid conflicts of interest and maintain reviewer independence throughout the review process.
Submissions by Editors and Editorial Board Members
Manuscripts submitted by the Editor-in-Chief, Associate Editors, Language Editors, or members of the Editorial Advisory Board are subject to the same double-blind peer-review process and editorial standards as all other submissions. Such manuscripts are handled by an editor who has no conflict of interest with the submitting author, and the submitting editor is excluded from all stages of the editorial process and decision-making concerning their own manuscript. Where the Editor-in-Chief is an author, the manuscript is handled independently by an Associate Editor.
Confidentiality and Ethical Standards
All manuscripts under review are treated as confidential documents. Reviewers are expected to maintain confidentiality, avoid conflicts of interest, provide constructive and objective evaluations, and comply with internationally recognized publication ethics standards.
Editors and reviewers may not use unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript for their own research purposes without the explicit written consent of the author(s). Manuscripts under review must not be uploaded to generative artificial intelligence tools or any other external service.
Revision and Re-evaluation
When revisions are requested, authors are expected to submit a revised manuscript together with a detailed response to reviewer comments. Revised submissions may be re-evaluated by the Associate Editor and, when necessary, returned to the original reviewers for further assessment.
Editorial Independence
Editorial decisions at CAP are made independently on the basis of scholarly merit, originality, methodological quality, relevance to the journal’s scope, and ethical considerations. Decisions are not influenced by the authors’ institutional affiliation, nationality, gender, academic title, or personal background.
Related Policies
Guidance for reviewers is provided in the Reviewer Guidelines, and each stage from submission to publication is described in the Editorial Workflow. Authors who wish to appeal an editorial decision may do so under the Complaints & Appeals policy.
