Peer Review Process : Editorial Procedure and Publication Timelines

Peer review is a cornerstone of academic publishing, ensuring the quality, credibility, and integrity of published research. GR Journals is committed to a rigorous, fair, and transparent review process in alignment with the principles of the Committee on Publication Ethics.

Peer Review Model: Single-Blind Peer Review Process

GR Journals follows a single-blind peer review model, in which the identities of authors are disclosed to reviewers, while reviewer identities remain confidential. This model ensures an objective, unbiased, and efficient evaluation of scholarly work while maintaining reviewer anonymity.

We expect the editor to base their decision solely on originality, reviewer suitability, scientific quality, ethical standards, methodological soundness, presentation quality, and overall relevance of the manuscript.

GR Journals upholds a strict policy of editorial independence, ensuring that decisions on acceptance are made without bias. Editorial standards of quality and significance are never compromised, and editors or journal staff are not involved in processing their own academic work.

Peer Review Workflow

GR Journals is committed to a rigorous, transparent, and efficient editorial and peer review process that ensures the quality, integrity, and scholarly value of all published content.

1. Initial Editorial Check

All manuscripts submitted through the Kryoni Journal Management System undergo an initial assessment by the Editorial Office and Managing Editor within 5–10 days of submission.

During this stage, manuscripts are evaluated for journal scope, completeness of files, ethical compliance, formatting requirements, and language clarity. Manuscripts that fail to meet these requirements may be returned for correction or rejected with an explanation.

2. Plagiarism Check

All submitted manuscripts are screened using iThenticate plagiarism detection software. GR Journals follows the guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics in handling suspected plagiarism cases.

Plagiarism includes the use of text, ideas, images, or data without proper acknowledgment, including self-plagiarism.

The journal permits a similarity index of up to 15% for original research articles and up to 20% for review articles, provided the overlap does not involve critical or novel content.

Manuscripts with serious ethical concerns may be rejected, while minor overlap cases may require clarification or revision.

3. Reviewer Invitation and Selection

Manuscripts that pass the initial screening are assigned to independent reviewers within 7–14 days of editorial assignment.

Reviewers are selected based on subject expertise, methodological suitability, publication experience, and absence of conflicts of interest.

• A minimum of two independent reviewers is assigned to each manuscript.
• Reviewers are identified through reviewer databases, editorial networks, citation analysis, and bibliographic searches.
• Author-suggested reviewers may be considered only after independent editorial verification.
• Preference is given to geographical and institutional diversity where appropriate.
• Reviewers from the same institution as the authors are not invited.
• Reviewers who recently evaluated closely related work from the same authors are generally avoided unless necessary.

4. Peer Review

GR Journals follows a confidential single-blind peer review process. Reviewers evaluate manuscripts based on originality, scientific rigor, clarity, ethical compliance, and contribution to the field.

The review process is generally completed within 4–6 weeks from acceptance of the review invitation.

Reviewer Evaluation Criteria

• Originality and novelty of the research.
• Relevance to the journal’s aims and scope.
• Scientific significance and contribution to the field.
• Methodological rigor and reproducibility of results.
• Clarity and quality of results and discussion.
• Quality and relevance of figures and tables.
• Appropriateness of statistical analysis and interpretation.
• Overall presentation and structure of the manuscript.
• English language quality and readability.

5. Editorial Decision

The Editor-in-Chief, Managing Editor, or designated editor evaluates reviewer reports and makes a final editorial decision within 10–15 days after all reviews are received.

The average time for the first editorial decision is approximately 4–6 weeks from submission.

• Accept — The manuscript is accepted in its current form.
• Minor Revision — Limited revisions are required before acceptance.
• Major Revision — Significant revisions and possible re-review are required.
• Reject and Resubmit — Extensive changes are needed and resubmission is treated as a new submission.
• Reject — The manuscript does not meet publication standards.

Author Appeals Policy

GR Journals provides authors with the opportunity to appeal editorial decisions where valid and substantiated grounds exist.

Authors may submit a formal appeal within 30 days of the rejection decision by providing detailed justification, point-by-point responses to reviewer comments, and supporting evidence.

Grounds for Appeal

• Procedural errors during editorial or peer review handling.
• Factual misunderstandings or misinterpretation by reviewers or editors.
• Concerns regarding fairness or conflict of interest in the review process.

Appeals based solely on disagreement regarding novelty, significance, or suitability are generally not considered valid.

Appeal Evaluation Process

Appeals are reviewed by the Managing Editor and Editor-in-Chief. Additional independent editorial assessment or external peer review may be requested where necessary.

If the appeal involves a conflict of interest, the case is handled by an independent senior editorial board member.

Outcome and Final Decision

• Upholding the original rejection.
• Reconsideration of the manuscript.
• Invitation for revision or additional peer review.

GR Journals aims to respond to appeals within approximately four weeks of submission. All decisions at this stage are considered final.

6. Revisions and Re-Review

Authors submitting revised manuscripts must provide a detailed point-by-point response to reviewer comments.

Revised manuscripts may be evaluated directly by the editor or returned to reviewers for additional assessment before a final decision is made.