1. Authors submit their papers to ScholarOne. Upon submission, all authors come across the following text: "CSSH employs a single-anonymous review policy, disclosing author identities to reviewers. To request double-anonymous review of your manuscript, use the drop-down menu." They can then make a selection about whether they want to remain anonymous to reviewers. This single/double anonymous selection is therefore made with authors' knowledge and consent.

2. All papers are shown to the editor in chief for an initial overview. The editor looks for  whether the submission is in keeping with the journal's comparative focus, built on original research, and whether it meets the logistical requirements (e.g., word length). Papers that meet the standard move to the next step. Those that do not are given a desk rejection.

 3. Viable papers are shared with the Editorial Committee. The author's name and institutional affiliation is shared with the committee. This is done so that committee members will not suggest reviewers which they know will constitute a conflict of interest, and so they may recuse themselves from discussing papers if they have any conflict of interest. 

 4. At Editorial Committee meetings, the committee works together to select potential reviewers. This is done collaboratively in order to avoid conflicts of interest and ensure equitable representation of disciplines and institutions .

5. Reviewers are invited to review manuscripts through ScholarOne. If during the submission process the author has opted for a single-anonymous review, their name is shared with the reviewer. If they have opted for double-anonymous, the name is not disclosed. 

In invitations to review, all potential reviewers are given the following message. "If you have any potential competing interests in relation to this submission, please get in touch with the editor so we can assess its impact on the review process. If a competing interest arises during preparation of your review, please include details of this in the confidential notes to the editor box in the submission system. Competing interests are situations that could be perceived to exert an undue influence on your review. They may include, but are not limited to, financial, professional, contractual or personal relationships or situations." 

6. Reviewers who agree to review manuscripts complete and submit their reviews. Our goal is three reviewers per paper. 

7. The editor makes a decision, based on reviews, and notifies the author about whether their paper has been accepted, whether revisions are requested, or whether the paper will be rejected. Anonymized reviewer comments are included in the decision letter. 

8. If revisions are requested, the author resubmits the paper to ScholarOne, and original reviewers are invited to review the revised manuscript (if they have indicated via ScholarOne that they are willing to review a revision).

9. After reviews come in, the editor decides to accept, reject, or request another round of revisions on the paper.