Peer Review Policy

ISSN: 0974-536X  ·  Double-Blind Peer Review  ·  Follows COPE Guidelines

---

Creative Saplings (CS) is a monthly, peer-reviewed, open-access journal committed to maintaining the highest standards of academic rigour, scholarly integrity, and editorial transparency. The journal operates a double-blind peer review process in which the identities of both authors and reviewers remain strictly anonymous throughout the entire evaluation process. All editorial decisions are made solely on the basis of scholarly merit, relevance, and contribution to the field.

The peer review process at Creative Saplings adheres to the guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and reflects the journal's unwavering commitment to fair, unbiased, and constructive scholarly evaluation.

---

Stage 1

Initial Editorial Screening

All manuscripts submitted to Creative Saplings undergo a rigorous preliminary assessment by the editorial team before being considered for external peer review. This initial screening is completed within 7 working days of submission. Manuscripts are evaluated on the following criteria:

• —Scope: Whether the manuscript falls within the journal's stated aims and scope in English language and literature studies.
• —Originality and Plagiarism: Whether the manuscript is original and unpublished. All submissions are screened using Turnitin plagiarism detection software at this stage.
• —Formatting Compliance: Whether the manuscript conforms to the journal's submission guidelines, including font, spacing, word count, abstract structure, and citation style.
• —Minimum Academic Standard: Whether the manuscript meets a basic threshold of scholarly quality sufficient to merit external review.

---

Stage 2

Double-Blind Peer Review

Manuscripts that successfully pass the initial editorial screening are assigned to a minimum of two independent subject-expert reviewers within 7 days of completing Stage 1. Both the author and the reviewers remain anonymous to each other throughout the review process.

Reviewers are selected on the basis of their documented expertise in the specific thematic or theoretical area addressed by the manuscript. The editorial board maintains a register of qualified reviewers drawn from institutions across India and abroad.

Stage	Timeline	Description
Desk Review	Within 7 working days	Editorial team screens for scope, originality, plagiarism, and formatting compliance.
Reviewer Assignment	Within 7 days of passing desk review	Manuscript assigned to a minimum of two independent subject-expert reviewers.
Review Period	3 – 4 weeks	Reviewers submit their detailed evaluations with recommendations.
Editorial Decision	5 – 7 weeks from submission	Author receives consolidated reviewer comments and an editorial decision.
Revision (if required)	Deadline communicated to author	Author submits revised manuscript with a point-by-point response to reviewer comments. Re-evaluated by editorial team and, where necessary, by original reviewers.
Final Decision	Following revision review	Final acceptance decision rests with the Chief Editor. The Chief Editor's judgment is final in all cases of conflicting reviewer opinion.

Given the journal's monthly publication schedule, accepted and copyedited manuscripts are assigned to the next available issue following the successful completion of all post-acceptance formalities, including author proofreading and final formatting.

---

Stage 3

Review Criteria

Reviewers are requested to evaluate submitted manuscripts against the following five criteria. Each criterion must be addressed in the reviewer's written report:

Criterion	Description
Originality and Significance	Does the manuscript make an original contribution to the field? Does it advance scholarly understanding in a meaningful way?
Relevance to Scope	Is the manuscript relevant to the fields of English language, literature, and criticism as defined by the journal's aims and scope?
Clarity and Coherence	Is the argument clearly articulated, logically structured, and written in standard academic English? Are the central claims adequately supported with evidence?
Theoretical and Methodological Rigour	Is the theoretical framework or critical methodology appropriate, clearly stated, and applied consistently? (Assessed where applicable.)
Contribution to the Discipline	Does the manuscript engage substantively with existing scholarship? Does it add something of value to the ongoing critical conversation in its field?

---

Stage 4

Possible Review Outcomes

Following the completion of the review process, reviewers submit a recommendation to the editorial board. The editorial board then issues one of the following four decisions to the author:

Decision	Meaning
Accept without Revisions	The manuscript is accepted for publication in its current form, subject to copyediting. No further changes to the scholarly content are required.
Accept with Minor Revisions	The manuscript is suitable for publication subject to minor, clearly specified amendments. Revised manuscripts are reviewed by the editorial team only and do not typically require a further full review cycle.
Accept with Major Revisions	The manuscript shows scholarly potential but requires substantial revision of argument, structure, theoretical engagement, or evidence. The revised manuscript will be returned to the original reviewers for re-evaluation before a final decision is made.
Reject	The manuscript does not meet the journal's standards for scholarly quality, originality, or relevance, and is not suitable for publication in Creative Saplings. Authors may be encouraged to seek a more appropriate publication venue.

---

Section 5

Ethical Standards and Transparency

Creative Saplings adheres to the highest ethical standards in peer review and editorial practice, and follows the COPE Guidelines for Peer Review in all matters. The following principles govern the journal's peer review practice:

• —Impartiality: All manuscripts are evaluated solely on scholarly merit, without regard to the author's nationality, institutional affiliation, gender, seniority, or prior publication record.
• —Confidentiality: All submitted manuscripts are treated as strictly confidential. Reviewers must not share, discuss, or cite a manuscript under review without the explicit permission of the editor.
• —Conflict of Interest: Reviewers must declare any conflict of interest — competitive, collaborative, financial, or personal — before accepting a review assignment. Editors will not assign manuscripts to reviewers with known conflicts of interest.
• —Constructive Feedback: Reviewers are expected to provide detailed, evidence-based, and constructive feedback that assists authors in improving their work, regardless of the final recommendation.
• —Prevention of Misconduct: The journal actively prevents plagiarism, duplicate submission, and data fabrication through editorial screening and Turnitin software, and acts promptly on any allegation of misconduct in accordance with COPE procedures.

---

Section 6

Open Access and Licensing

Creative Saplings is a fully open-access journal. All published articles are immediately and permanently available online at no cost to readers or authors. The journal charges no article processing charges (APC), subscription fees, or access fees of any kind.

All content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC 4.0), which permits the following:

Permission	Condition
Read, download, copy, distribute, and print	Freely permitted for any purpose, with proper attribution to the original authors and publication.
Share and adapt	Permitted with proper attribution to the original work and source journal.
Commercial use	Strictly prohibited without explicit written permission from the copyright holder (the author).

---

Section 7

Appeals and Author Reconsideration

Authors who believe that an editorial decision was made in error — whether due to a misunderstanding of the manuscript's argument, an inadequate reviewer report, or a procedural irregularity — may submit a formal written appeal to the editorial office at editor@creativesaplings.in.

To be considered, an appeal must:

• —Be submitted in writing within 30 days of the editorial decision being communicated.
• —Set out clearly and specifically the grounds on which the decision is being contested.
• —Not constitute a simple expression of disagreement with the reviewers' scholarly assessment.

---

Publishing Ethics  ·  Plagiarism Policy  ·  Author Guidelines  ·  Complaint Handling Committee  ·  COPE Guidelines

Creative Saplings  ·  e-ISSN: 0974-536X  ·  editor@creativesaplings.in  ·  https://creativesaplings.in/index.php/1/