Reviewer Policy

Welcome to the Reviewer Policy for Global Journals®. Reviewers are essential partners in ensuring the rigor, fairness, and reliability of our scholarly publications. This policy explains expectations, rights, responsibilities, and ethical standards for those invited to peer review manuscripts for our journals.

Selection, Invitation & Eligibility
  • Manuscripts are reviewed by at least two independent experts, chosen for their domain expertise and absence of conflicts.
  • When inviting a reviewer, we check the candidate’s publication record, relevance to the subject, and possible conflicts with authors.
  • Sometimes reviewers are recruited via a volunteer pool; those who perform well may be elevated to formal Reviewer Board membership.
Responding to Invitations
  • Reviewers should accept or decline invites promptly, based on expertise, workload, and ability to meet deadlines.
  • If declining, you may suggest alternative qualified reviewers.
  • If more time is required, request an extension early to avoid derailing the review process.
  • All details of a manuscript’s review process, including reviewer identity (unless open review applies), reviewer comments, and internal editorial correspondence, are treated as confidential.
  • All of our journals offer double-anonymized review, in which authors and reviewers remain mutually blind to each other’s identities.
  • Reviewers should not share, reproduce, or use manuscript content outside the peer review process, including in AI tools unless the tool safeguards confidentiality.
Anonymity, Confidentiality & Review Models
  • All details of a manuscript’s review process, including reviewer identity (unless open review applies), reviewer comments, and internal editorial correspondence, are treated as confidential.
  • All of our journals offer double-anonymized review, in which authors and reviewers remain mutually blind to each other’s identities.
  • Reviewers should not share, reproduce, or use manuscript content outside the peer review process, including in AI tools unless the tool safeguards confidentiality.
Conducting the Review
Your review should be thoughtful, structured, and evidence-based:
  • Summary - Start with a concise summary of the manuscript: its goals, methods, and conclusions.
  • Major Concerns - Identify critical issues: methodology, data interpretation, justification, novelty, and robustness.
  • Minor Issues & Suggestions - Point out improvements in clarity, language, presentation, references, formatting.
  • Comments to Editor (optional) - If there are issues you wish to highlight privately (e.g. suspected duplication, ethical concern), provide them here.

All critiques should be supported with rationale, references, or examples. Avoid vague statements.

Ethical Standards & Objectivity
  • Judge submissions on merit alone, independent of author identity, affiliation, funding, nationality, or reputation.
  • Decline to review if a conflict exists (e.g. recent co-authorship, institutional overlap, personal relationship).
  • Do not seek to influence decisions for personal gain (e.g. excessive self-citation recommendations).
  • If you notice overlap with existing literature, misconduct, redundancy, or other red flags, alert the editor promptly.
Use of AI / Language Assistance
  • You may use AI tools solely for improving clarity, grammar, or readability, not to generate substantive critique or interpretation.
  • If you use any AI tool, disclose its name, version, and extent of use in your review.
  • Do not feed manuscript text, data, or figures into AI platforms that lack privacy assurances or violate confidentiality.
Timeliness & Accountability
  • Meet the agreed deadline or inform the editor in advance if unable to do so.
  • If midway you realize you cannot complete the review, withdraw immediately to allow reassignment.
  • Consistently late or low-quality reviews may lead to removal from the reviewer pool.
Recognition & Benefits
  • Reviewers may be publicly acknowledged (if permitted), receive certificates, inclusion in reviewer lists, or other recognitions.
  • Some reviewers may be eligible for awards, vouchers, or preferential consideration for editorial roles.
Commitment to Quality and Integrity
  • All submissions undergo a double-blind peer review to maintain impartiality and fairness.
  • Reviewers are selected for their subject expertise, independence, and commitment to ethical standards.
  • Manuscripts are evaluated solely on the basis of their academic merit, without discrimination on the grounds of nationality, gender, institutional affiliation, or personal beliefs.
Peer-review Publication Policies
  • When a manuscript is selected for peer review at Global Journals®, it is typically sent to two or more independent reviewers chosen by the editors. We welcome authors’ suggestions for potential reviewers and will carefully consider requests to exclude specific individuals or labs, though the editors reserve the final authority in selecting reviewers. All participants in the review process, editors, reviewers, and authors are required to maintain strict confidentiality about the manuscript, reviews, and decision discussions. Unless a journal explicitly uses an open review model, reviewers remain anonymous and their identities are never disclosed. Reviewers must not share or reuse manuscript content outside of the review process. If a reviewer thinks it useful to consult a colleague during their evaluation, they must first obtain permission from the editor and then disclose the name(s) of the colleague(s) to the editorial office along with their final report. Even if a manuscript is rejected, withdrawn, or transferred, all correspondence, review reports, and internal notes must not be released or publicized without written consent. In cases of suspected misconduct (for example, plagiarism, data manipulation, or ethical violations), Global Journals® reserves the right to inform funding agencies, regulators, institutions, or other relevant bodies as needed, while adhering to due process and confidentiality protections.
RAAR Report
  • Referees are asked to evaluate and submit the report from our platform. Language correction is not part of the peer review process, but referees may, if so wish, suggest corrections to the manuscript.
Our Review Process

Initial Screening

  • Manuscripts are first evaluated by our editorial team for scope, originality, and compliance with ethical standards.
  • Papers not meeting submission guidelines or ethical requirements are returned without review.

Double-Blind Peer Review

  • Both the authors’ and reviewers’ identities remain anonymous throughout the process.
  • Each manuscript is reviewed by at least two independent experts in the relevant field.
  • Reviews focus on originality, methodology, clarity, ethical compliance, and contribution to the discipline.

Editorial Decision

  • Acceptance (with or without minor revisions)
  • Revision (major changes required before reconsideration)
  • Rejection (if the manuscript does not meet quality or ethical standards)

Revisions & Resubmission

  • Authors are given clear guidance and adequate time to address reviewer comments.
  • Revised manuscripts may undergo additional rounds of review if necessary.

Final Approval & Publication

  • Once accepted, manuscripts undergo professional editing, formatting, and indexing.
  • Each paper is assigned a DOI for permanent citation and global accessibility.