Principles of Peer Review

The journal's evaluation procedures are guided by the following principles:

Double-Blind Peer-Review Model

Under the double-blind review model, the identities of authors and reviewers are concealed from one another during peer review to the extent reasonably possible.

Authors must prepare anonymized manuscript files and remove identifying information where required by the submission guidelines. Author-identifying details, acknowledgments, and other information that may compromise anonymity should be handled through the appropriate submission files and metadata fields.

Double-blind review reduces the potential influence of author identity but cannot guarantee complete anonymity in every circumstance. Public preprints, specialized research topics, references to previous work, or other contextual information may make authorship identifiable.

Reviewers must not deliberately seek to identify concealed authors. If a reviewer's knowledge of an author's identity creates a relevant conflict of interest, the reviewer must inform the handling editor promptly.

Manuscripts that do not satisfy the journal's scope, submission requirements, or essential scholarly and ethical standards may be declined during initial editorial screening without external peer review.

Indicative Editorial Timeline

CSGS aims to provide timely decisions while allowing sufficient time for independent scholarly assessment. The following periods describe editorial objectives rather than guaranteed deadlines or verified historical averages.

Interpretation: These periods are editorial objectives, not verified historical averages or guaranteed deadlines. Several stages may overlap and should not be treated as a strictly additive schedule.

The first-decision target includes both desk decisions and decisions following external review. The final-decision and submission-to-publication estimates apply where the necessary evaluation, author revisions, and production procedures can be completed within the indicated period. Additional reviewers, multiple review rounds, or extensive revisions may extend these timelines.

Editorial Evaluation and Review Stages

The following description summarizes the principal responsibilities and decisions within the editorial workflow. More detailed operational information is available in the journal's Review Process.

Submission and Initial Assessment

Submitted manuscripts undergo preliminary verification of essential files, submission metadata, anonymization requirements, declarations, and other applicable submission conditions.

The editorial office evaluates whether the manuscript falls within the journal's scope and satisfies essential standards of scholarly quality, originality, and research integrity.

Manuscripts may be returned for technical correction or declined without external review when essential requirements are not met. Appropriate similarity screening may assist the evaluation, but a similarity percentage alone does not establish plagiarism or misconduct.

Handling Editor and Reviewer Selection

Manuscripts proceeding beyond initial screening are assigned to a qualified handling editor. Assignments consider disciplinary expertise, methodological competence, availability, editorial workload, and potential conflicts of interest.

The handling editor identifies and invites independent reviewers. Where a manuscript is highly interdisciplinary or requires specialized technical assessment, additional expertise may be sought.

Reviewers are expected to disclose relevant competing interests before accepting an assignment and to notify the editor if a new conflict emerges during the review.

External Peer Review

Independent reviewers evaluate the manuscript's research contribution, theoretical or conceptual foundation, methodological rigor, analysis, transparency, interpretation, and relevance to CSGS.

Review reports should distinguish substantive scholarly concerns from minor editorial or presentation issues and provide sufficiently specific recommendations to support an informed editorial decision.

The journal ordinarily requests reviewer reports within 14–21 days after reviewers accept their invitations. This period is an indicative target and may be extended where the complexity of the research or other justified circumstances require additional time.

Editorial Decision

Editorial outcomes may include:

• Accept: The manuscript satisfies the journal's scholarly and publication requirements.
• Minor Revision: Limited corrections or clarifications are required before further consideration.
• Major Revision: Substantive analytical, methodological, conceptual, or presentation concerns require further work.
• Reject: The manuscript does not satisfy the journal's requirements or essential concerns remain unresolved.

Reviewer recommendations inform the editorial decision but do not determine it automatically. Where assessments differ materially, the handling editor may consider the competing arguments, request clarification, or seek additional independent expertise.

The Editor-in-Chief retains final editorial authority, subject to the journal's conflict-of-interest and independent handling procedures.

Revision and Reassessment

Authors invited to revise must submit an updated manuscript and a point-by-point response addressing the substantive comments of editors and reviewers.

The required revision deadline is specified in the editorial decision letter and may vary according to the scope of the requested changes. Authors may request an extension where justified.

Revisions may be assessed by the handling editor or returned to external reviewers where appropriate. Additional review rounds may be necessary, and an invitation to revise does not guarantee acceptance.

Final Decision and Production

Following satisfactory evaluation and completion of any necessary revisions, the authorized editorial leadership determines whether the manuscript may be accepted for publication.

Accepted manuscripts proceed to production, which may involve copyediting, typesetting, author proof review, verification of publication metadata, DOI registration where applicable, and final quality assurance.

The journal may publish production-ready accepted articles online before their assignment to a scheduled quarterly issue. Publication is subject to completion of the required production and publication procedures.

Scholarly Assessment Standards

Peer review reflects the scholarly purpose, methodology, and evidentiary requirements of the submitted article. CSGS recognizes that different forms of interdisciplinary research may require different evaluation criteria.

Principal evaluation considerations include:

• Originality and Contribution: The significance and distinctiveness of the scholarly contribution.
• Theoretical and Conceptual Quality: The coherence of the framework, argument, and relationship to relevant scholarship.
• Methodological Rigor: The appropriateness, transparency, and validity of the research design and analysis.
• Research Transparency: The adequacy of data sources, model assumptions, reporting, and research documentation.
• Interpretation and Limitations: Whether conclusions follow from the evidence and relevant uncertainties are addressed.
• Scholarly Relevance: The manuscript's contribution to climate sustainability, environmental systems, governance, or related interdisciplinary scholarship.

These standards are applied according to the requirements of the journal's six article categories: Original Research, Review Articles, Policy Analysis, Methods & Frameworks, Short Communications, and Data & AI Reports.

Studies involving computational models, AI, environmental datasets, or scenario projections may require additional examination of data provenance, model validation, uncertainty, sensitivity, and reproducibility. Policy-oriented and qualitative research is assessed according to the appropriateness of its conceptual framework, evidence, context, and interpretation.

Research Integrity and Confidentiality Safeguards

CSGS incorporates appropriate research-integrity safeguards into manuscript screening, peer review, editorial decisions, and post-publication accountability.

Relevant requirements include:

• Originality: Appropriate attribution and disclosure of closely related or previously disseminated work.
• Conflicts of Interest: Disclosure and management of relevant financial, institutional, professional, or personal interests.
• Research Ethics: Appropriate ethical approval, consent, and research permissions where required.
• Data Availability: A Data Availability Statement for every submission, including an explanation of justified restrictions or the absence of research datasets.
• AI Transparency: Disclosure of substantive AI assistance in accordance with the journal's AI Use and Research Integrity Policy.
• Citation Integrity: Accurate and relevant references, without fabricated citations, coercive citation requests, or improper citation manipulation.

Reviewers and editors must not upload unpublished manuscripts, confidential reviewer reports, or private editorial communications to third-party AI tools without express journal authorization and appropriate confidentiality, data protection, and security safeguards.

Credible concerns about research misconduct, peer-review manipulation, or the reliability of reported findings must be assessed through fair, documented, and proportionate procedures. An allegation or automated screening result does not by itself establish misconduct.

The journal's ethical procedures are informed by relevant guidance from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Reference to COPE guidance does not imply formal membership in that organization.

Special Issue Peer Review

Manuscripts submitted to special issues or thematic collections are subject to the same scholarly standards, research-integrity requirements, and independent peer-review principles as manuscripts considered for regular issues.

Guest Editors may coordinate evaluations, invite qualified reviewers, and provide scholarly recommendations within their assigned responsibilities. Their work remains subject to the journal's editorial policies and the oversight of the Editor-in-Chief.

Guest Editors must disclose relevant conflicts of interest. Submissions involving a conflicted Guest Editor must be handled by an appropriately independent editor.

Invitation to contribute to a special issue does not guarantee acceptance or provide exemption from editorial screening, independent review, or the journal's publication requirements.

Editorial Accountability and Appeals

Editorial decisions are based on the substance of scholarly evaluation rather than a simple numerical count of reviewer recommendations. Where reviewers disagree, the responsible editor evaluates the reasoning and evidence and may seek additional advice when justified.

Financial considerations, including Article Processing Charge payments, discounts, waivers, sponsorship, or the commercial interests of the publisher, must not influence the academic assessment or acceptance of manuscripts.

Authors may appeal editorial decisions where they identify a material factual error, substantial academic misunderstanding, procedural irregularity, or relevant conflict of interest.

Ordinary editorial appeals must generally be submitted within 30 days of the relevant decision. Credible reports of serious research-integrity concerns are considered under the applicable ethics procedures and are not excluded solely by this ordinary appeal deadline.

Further information is provided in the journal's Complaints & Appeals Policy.

Publication Schedule and Author Communication

CSGS follows a quarterly publication schedule, with regular issues planned for March, June, September, and December.

Where the Online-First workflow is available, accepted and production-ready articles may be published electronically before allocation to a scheduled issue. The date of initial online publication may therefore differ from the formal issue publication date.

Editorial decisions and revision requests are communicated through the journal's official submission system. The editorial office seeks to provide relevant updates when processing is delayed by reviewer availability, additional expert assessment, extensive revisions, or production requirements.

The journal's publication schedule and indicative processing periods do not supersede the requirements of independent peer review or the need to resolve outstanding scholarly and ethical concerns before publication.