Reviewer Guidelines

1. Peer Review and Editorial Process

Peer review is a fundamental component of the publication process and ensures that GR Journals maintains the highest standards of academic quality and integrity . All manuscripts submitted to our journals undergo a rigorous and thorough peer-review process conducted by subject-matter experts. GR Journals follows a single-blind peer review model.

Initial Submission and Technical Pre-Check

Upon submission, each manuscript undergoes an initial technical screening the Editorial Office to ensure compliance with journal guidelines, formatting requirements, and ethical standards.

The Managing Editor is then notified and conducts an editorial pre-check to assess the manuscript’s relevance, originality, and suitability for the journal. At this stage, the Managing Editor may:

  • Proceed with the peer review process,

  • Reject the manuscript, or

  • Request revisions prior to external peer review.

Peer Review Process

If the manuscript proceeds to peer review, the Editorial Office assigns it to independent expert reviewers . Each manuscript is evaluated by at least two qualified reviewers who provide detailed and constructive reports.

Authors are required to address all reviewer comments thoroughly . When necessary, a revised manuscript may undergo a second round of peer review before a final decision is reached.

Final Decision

The final decision regarding acceptance, revision, or rejection is made by the Managing Editor in consultation with the Editor-in-Chief or a designated Editorial Board Member .

2. Reviewer Eligibility and Responsibilities

Reviewers play a vital role in maintaining the integrity and quality of the scholarly record. All reviewers are expected to evaluate manuscripts in a timely, transparent, and ethical manner, in accordance with COPE guidelines.

Eligibility Criteria (Reviewers must have):

  • No conflicts of interest with the authors

  • No affiliation with the same institution as the authors

  • No co-authorship with the authors (in the past three years)

  • A PhD or equivalent qualification

  • Relevant expertise and a strong publication record in the subject area

  • An official and recognized academic affiliation

These requirements ensure a fair, objective, and high-quality peer-review process .

Reviewers must:

  • Possess the necessary expertise to assess the scientific quality of manuscripts

  • Provide high-quality, constructive review reports and remain responsive throughout the peer review process

  • Maintain the highest standards of professionalism and ethical conduct

3. General Guidelines to Reviewers

3.1 Invitation to Review

Editors invite qualified experts to review a submitted manuscript based on their expertise. Reviewers should accept only if the manuscript matches their field and they can complete the review within the given timeline.

  1. Promptly accept or decline review invitations after evaluating the manuscript title

  2. Notify the editorial office in a timely manner if additional time is required to submit a comprehensive evaluation report

3.2 Potential Conflicts of Interest

Reviewers must disclose any financial, professional, or personal relationships that could influence their decision (e.g., collaboration with authors, institutional affiliation, any other). If a conflict exists, they should decline the review.

3.3 Confidentiality and Peer Review Policy

GR Journals follows a single-blind peer review process. Reviewers are required to treat all manuscripts under review as strictly confidential until publication. This includes all content within the submission.

Reviewers must not disclose their identity to the authors, either within review comments or through metadata in files submitted in formats such as Microsoft Word or PDF.

Manuscripts received for review must not be shared, discussed with third parties, copied, or used in any manner for personal or professional benefit prior to publication.

3.4 Review Reports

Reviewers are expected to provide clear, objective, and constructive evaluations of submitted manuscripts. Reports should highlight the strengths of the work, identify weaknesses, suggest specific improvements, and support the recommended editorial decision.

Reviewers may structure their report as:

  1. Summary of the manuscript

  2. Major comments

  3. Minor comments

  4. Final recommendation

3.4.1 Overall Assessment

Reviewers should carefully read the entire manuscript, including any Supplementary Materials (if applicable), paying particular attention to the figures, tables, data presentation, and methodology.

A brief summary (one short paragraph) should be provided outlining:

  • The aim of the paper

  • Its main contributions

  • Its key strengths

3.4.2 Revision Comments

Reviewers should critically evaluate the manuscript as a whole, including its structure, scientific rigor, clarity of key concepts, and overall contribution to the field.

Comments should be sufficiently detailed to enable the authors to clearly understand and appropriately address the concerns raised.

3.4.3 Ethical and Professional Standards

  • Maintain a neutral, respectful, and constructive tone throughout the review.

  • Derogatory or personal comments will not be tolerated.

  • Do not recommend excessive self-citations, honorary citations, or unnecessary citations from the journal. References may be suggested only if they genuinely improve the quality of the manuscript.

  • Reviewers must not use Generative AI tools or Large Language Models (LLMs) in the preparation of review reports.

  • Treat all manuscripts as confidential documents and do not share or discuss their content without editorial permission.

3.5 Evaluation Criteria

Reviewers are requested to evaluate manuscripts based on:

  1. Originality and Novelty: The research question should be original, clearly defined, and scientifically justified. The results should advance current knowledge and contribute meaningfully to the field.

  2. Relevance to Journal Scope: The manuscript must align with the aims and scope of the journal and be relevant to its readership.

  3. Significance and Contribution: The findings should be significant, and conclusions must be fully supported by the results. Hypotheses should be clearly identified and properly tested.

  4. Scientific Soundness and Methodology: The study should be well designed, technically rigorous, and methodologically sound. Methods and materials must be described in sufficient detail to ensure reproducibility. Data should be robust and appropriately analyzed.

  5. Results and Discussion: The results should be clearly presented, logically organized, and thoroughly discussed in relation to existing literature. The discussion should explain the implications and limitations of the study.

  6. Quality of Figures and Tables: Figures and tables must be clear, properly labeled, high in quality, and directly relevant to the findings. They should effectively support and enhance the presentation of results.

  7. Data Analysis and Interpretation: Statistical analyses must be appropriate and correctly applied. Results should be clearly presented and logically interpreted in the context of existing literature.

  8. Quality of Presentation: The manuscript should be well structured and professionally written. Figures and tables must be clear, relevant, and properly labeled. References should be current and appropriately cited.

  9. English Language Quality: The English language should be clear, grammatically correct, and suitable for publication standards.

3.6 Overall Recommendation

Please provide an overall recommendation regarding the manuscript as follows:

  1. Accept in Current Form: The manuscript meets the journal’s standards and requires no further revisions. It is suitable for publication as submitted.

  2. Minor Revision: The manuscript requires small revisions or modifications before acceptance. The revisions are limited and do not significantly affect the overall content or conclusions.

  3. Major Revision: The manuscript requires substantial revisions to improve clarity, methodology, analysis, or presentation. Significant changes are needed before it can be reconsidered for publication.

  4. Reject: The manuscript does not meet the journal’s standards or scope. Major concerns regarding quality, originality, or methodology prevent its consideration for publication.