CSP Journal

Publication Ethics

Review process:

Our editors carefully read and consider every article regardless of when it is submitted. The CSP Journal occasionally solicits feedback on submissions from faculty and practitioners who are expert in their fields. Please be aware that this peer review is part of the standard review process that the article may undergo.

Before sending an article out for peer review, we remove information that identifies the author (double blind peer review), although the reviewer may be familiar with the article if it has been presented at a workshop or conference or circulated online.

Our editors always seek to review articles within a few weeks after receiving them, but it might take longer to reach a decision when submission volumes are high. If we are unable to extend a publication offer, we will notify the author promptly by specifying the reasons of rejection. When the CSP Journal decides to publish an article, we contact the author immediately to extend an offer.

Only authors who meet the following criteria will be listed as authors (or co-authors):

made significant contributions to the conception or analysis of the study;
revised it critically in accordance with reviewers’ comments;
approved the final version of the paper for publication.

Plagiarism policy:

All the submitted manuscripts for publication are checked for plagiarism after submission and before starting review. Manuscripts submitted to the journal is checked for originality using anti-plagiarism software. CSP's editorial team will judge any case of plagiarism on its limits.

If plagiarism is detected by the editorial team, in any stage of review process - before or after acceptance then we will alert the same to the author(s) and will ask them to rewrite the content or to cite the references from where the content has been taken.

If more than 30% of the paper is plagiarized - the article may be rejected and the same is notified to the author. If the plagiarism is detected more than 30%, it is found that the authors are very unlikely to revise the manuscript and submit the revised version. However, authors are welcome to do the required revisions and submit the manuscript as a new submission.

By submitting manuscript to the journal, Author(s) should make sure that it is an original manuscript and is unpublished work and is not under consideration elsewhere. Plagiarism, including duplicate publication of the author's own work, in whole or in part without proper citation is not accepted by the journal.

Publication Malpractice Statement:

The journal upholds the highest standards of integrity in research and publication ethics to ensure that ethical practices are upheld at every stage of the publication process. Misconduct or malpractice in any form will not be tolerated. All forms of unethical behaviour, including undisclosed conflicts of interest or manipulation of the peer review process, are strictly prohibited. Editors and reviewers are required to act with integrity, impartiality, and confidentiality throughout the editorial process. Any suspected cases of misconduct will be investigated and may result in rejection or retraction.

Policy on Allegations of Misconduct:

The journal takes all allegations of research and publication misconduct seriously. Suspected cases of data fabrication, falsification, image manipulation, plagiarism, duplicate submission, authorship disputes, or unethical research practices will be investigated by the Editorial Board.

When concerns are raised the editorial team will conduct a preliminary assessment. If warranted, the case will be investigated in consultation with the authors’ institution or relevant bodies. During the investigation, authors may be asked to provide original data or supporting documentation. Proven misconduct may result in manuscript rejection, publication retraction, corrections, or notifications of concern, depending on severity.

The CSP journal is committed to ensuring fairness, confidentiality, and transparency in all investigations of misconduct.

Policy on Appeals of Editorial Decisions:

Authors have the right to appeal editorial decisions if they believe that their manuscript was not evaluated fairly or that an error occurred during the review process. Appeals must be submitted in writing within 30 days of the editorial decision. The appeal should include the manuscript’s title, a detailed explanation of the reason for the appeal and any supporting evidence or clarification relevant to the case.

Appeals will be reviewed by the Editor-in-Chief. The outcome of the appeal will be communicated in writing, and the decision of the Editor-in-Chief will be final. For appeals, please contact: editorcspjournal@gmail.com

Complaints Policy:

The journal is committed to handling all complaints fairly and transparently. Complaints may relate to the journal’s editorial policies and procedures, the peer review process, published content, or allegations of misconduct by authors, reviewers, or editors.

Complaints should be submitted in writing to the journal office. The Editor-in-Chief will conduct an initial assessment. Complainants will receive an acknowledgment within 7 working days and a full response once the issue has been investigated. Where appropriate, corrective actions may include corrections, retractions, or policy revisions. The journal treats all complaints seriously and will maintain confidentiality throughout the process. For complaints, please contact: editorcspjournal@gmail.com

Conflicts of Interest Policy:

The journal is committed to maintaining the highest standards of integrity and transparency in publishing. To protect the credibility of the scholarly record, all potential conflicts of interest (COIs) must be disclosed and managed appropriately.

What constitutes a conflict of interest

A conflict of interest exists when professional judgment concerning a manuscript may be influenced—or appear to be influenced—by personal, financial, academic, or other relationships. COIs may be financial (e.g., funding, employment, stock ownership, paid consultancies, patents) or non-financial (e.g., personal relationships, academic competition, political or religious beliefs).

Application to journal roles

Authors: Must declare all relevant financial and non-financial COIs at submission, including sources of funding and the role of sponsors in the research;
Reviewers: Must disclose any COIs that may affect their objectivity (e.g., personal relationships with authors, direct competition, financial interests) and decline reviews where a conflict exists;