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
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.
Reviewer Identity Hidden
Author identities are concealed from reviewers to support objective evaluation.
Author identities are concealed from reviewers to support objective evaluation.
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.
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.
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).
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.
