Editorial Guidelines

These Editorial Guidelines define the standards, practices, and expectations that guide editors, reviewers, and authors at Global Journals®. They help ensure manuscripts are handled ethically, transparently, and fairly throughout submission, review, publication, and post-publication.

General Principles​
  • Editorial decisions are made based solely on scholarly merit, originality, methodological rigor, clarity, and relevance to the journal’s scope.
  • The editorial team must maintain full independence, commercial, institutional, or personal pressures must not influence decisions.
  • All parties (editors, reviewers, authors) are expected to behave professionally, respectfully, and ethically; discrimination, harassment, or derogatory language is unacceptable.
  • Confidentiality is required at all stages: manuscripts, reviewer reports, editorial correspondence, deliberations, and decision rationales remain private unless policy or consent dictates otherwise.
Conflicts of Interest & Disclosure​
  • Editors, reviewers, and authors must disclose any financial, professional, personal, or institutional relationships that might influence judgment.
  • Individuals with conflicts should recuse themselves from handling or evaluating manuscripts where bias may arise.
  • Each submission and review assignment must be accompanied by a disclosure statement.
Use of AI & Automated Tools​
  • Authors may use AI or AI-assisted tools only for language polishing, grammar correction, formatting, or readability enhancements, not for generating substantive ideas, analysis, or writing.
  • Such use must be clearly disclosed in a new section (e.g. “Disclosure of AI Use”), naming the tool(s), version, and how it was used.
  • AI tools must not be listed as authors; accountability for content must rest with human authors.
  • Editors and reviewers should not upload manuscripts or review files into external AI systems unless confidentiality, privacy, and data-protection measures meet journal standards.
Submission Declarations & Desk Screening​
  • Submission implies that the work is original, not published elsewhere (except as allowed versions, e.g. preprints), and not under consideration at another journal.
  • Editors conduct a desk screening to assess scope fit, completeness, ethical compliance, and overall suitability before sending for peer review.
  • Manuscripts that clearly fail to meet journal criteria may be desk-rejected without full review, to conserve resources. This is consistent with practices at leading publishers.
Handling Suspected Plagiarism or Duplicate Publication

Pre-Publication (Submitted Manuscripts)

  • When plagiarism or overlap is suspected
  • The reviewer reports concerns to the editor with evidence.
  • The editor evaluates quantitatively and qualitatively and classifies overlap into one of four levels.
  • Major Plagiarism
  • Extensive copying without attribution.
  • Minor Plagiarism
  • Idiomatic phrases, short copied portions.
  • Self-Plagiarism
  • Reuse of own prior work without citation.
  • Negligible Overlap
  • Trivial similarity.
Appropriate actions
  • Major
  • Request author explanation, require citation or withdrawal; if no response or misleading replies, reject and notify institutions.
  • Minor
  • Ask author to revise overlapping sections or add citation, then resume review.
  • Self-Plagiarism
  • Request proper self-reference or note.
  • Negligible
  • Suggest minor adjustments; continue review.
Post-Publication (Published Articles)
  • When duplication is flagged after publication
  • Accept and verify complaints (with documentation).
  • Classify severity (major/minor/negligible).
  • Contact authors for explanation and original materials.
  • If major, consider retraction or expression of concern.
  • If minor, issue a correction or erratum.
  • For negligible cases, a short note or clarification may suffice.
  • Publish notices clearly linked to the original article; notify institutions, authors, and readers.
Fabricated or Manipulated Data
  • In Submitted Manuscripts
  • If suspicion arises, request raw data, calculations, and records.
  • Engage a second reviewer or expert if needed.
  • If authors respond with acceptable evidence or corrections, proceed.
  • If there is no response or inadequate explanation, reject and notify the relevant institution.
Authorship Changes & Disputes
  • Before Publication
  • Requests to add or remove authors require written consent from all authors and justification.
  • Changes are made only when all agree.
  • If disagreement remains, the request is withheld pending resolution.
In Published Work
  • When concerns are raised post-publication, request author response and verification.
  • Consult independent reviewers if needed.
  • If data fabrication is confirmed, issue a retraction, expression of concern, or correction.
  • If the author is cleared, publish a corrigendum or correction.
Gift, Guest, & Ghost Authorship
  • At submission, require a contribution statement, sent to all authors for confirmation.
  • If a ghost contributor is identified, request inclusion or acknowledgment (with consent).
  • If a guest or gift author is listed without valid contribution, request removal or relocation to acknowledgments.
  • If unresolved, escalate to the authors’ institution.
Hidden Conflicts of Interest
  • If a reviewer, editor, or reader discovers undisclosed conflict, report it to the editor-in-chief.
  • The editor contacts authors to clarify or update disclosure.
  • If conflict cannot be resolved, the manuscript may be rejected or reassigned.
  • For published work, corrections or notices may follow if conflict surfaces later.
Ethical & Moral Concerns
  • If ethical or moral issues arise (e.g. misconduct, flawed consent), request explanation from authors.
  • If the response is satisfactory, continue reviewing.
  • If unsatisfactory or no reply, pause evaluation and escalate to institutional review or ethics body.
Reviewer Misconduct & Data Theft
  • If a reviewer is suspected of misusing author data, initiate an investigation.
  • Request evidence and explanations.
  • If confirmed, remove the reviewer, retract improper content, notify institutions, and apologize to affected author(s).
  • In ambiguous cases, allow the reviewer to respond before judgment, yet prioritize fairness and integrity.
Grievance, Appeals & Oversight
  • Establish a Grievance Redressal Forum to receive complaints from authors, reviewers, or editors.
  • Complaints are evaluated for validity, escalated through internal committees, and decisions documented and communicated.
  • Appeals may be considered in exceptional, justified cases.
Data Sharing & Transparency
  • Authors are encouraged (or required) to provide data availability statements and share data when possible, following journal or funder policies.
  • When data is sensitive or restricted (e.g. human subjects), appropriate anonymization or limited access protocols must be used.
Preprints & Prior Posting
  • Posting of preprint versions (on recognized non-commercial servers) is generally allowed and is not considered duplicate publication.
  • Authors must disclose the presence of any preprint in the cover letter.
  • After acceptance, authors should update the preprint to link to the final published version.