Reviewer Guidelines

Thank you for agreeing to review for Global Journals®. These guidelines are intended to help you deliver clear, constructive, and ethical peer reviews. Please follow them to ensure consistency, fairness, and high quality in the reviewing process.

Before Accepting the Invitation
  • Please consider the following professionally
  • Read the abstract or summary provided, and check whether the manuscript fits your expertise and interests.
  • Consider your current workload and whether you can deliver a thoughtful review within the deadline.
  • Disclose any conflict of interest (e.g. recent collaboration, institutional affiliation, close relationships) immediately, if a conflict exists, you should decline.
  • If anything is unclear (scope, data, methodology), feel free to ask for clarifications before accepting.
  • Are you familiar with, and able to follow, the ethical guidelines for peer reviewers?
  • Do you understand the type of peer review our journal uses (e.g. blind, double-blind, or open)?
  • Do you know how to submit your review? In many cases, you will complete an online form with structured questions and/or free text fields; in other cases, you may need to send your report by email.
  • Can you complete the review within the allotted time? If meeting the deadline may be difficult, please let the editor know in advance so they can inform the authors.
  • Is this your first time reviewing, or would you like to refresh your skills? We encourage you to go through our reviewer training and resource materials before you begin.
Guidelines Before Accepting a Review Invitation
  • Confirm that the manuscript falls within your expertise and that you can complete a thorough review within the deadline.
  • Immediately disclose any conflict of interest (institutional, financial, personal). If a conflict is present, you should decline.
  • Seek clarification from the editor if any part of the manuscript’s scope, data, or method is unclear before you accept.
Approach to Reviewing
  • a) First Read-Through
  • Skim through the manuscript to understand the research question, methods, results, and main claims.
  • Note any immediate concerns (e.g. unclear concepts, missing data, mismatch between claims and evidence).
  • Form an initial impression of whether the work is novel, relevant, and suitable for our journal.
  • b) Detailed (Second) Read
  • Go section by section: Introduction, Methods, Results, Discussion, Conclusion, Figures/Tables, References, Supplementary Material
  • Evaluate:
  • Originality & significance: Does the work advance knowledge or address a gap?
  • Methodology & rigor: Are the methods appropriate, reproducible, and validated?
  • Data & analysis: Are results presented clearly? Are analyses correct and adequately described?
  • Interpretation & conclusions: Are conclusions supported by data? Are alternative explanations considered?
  • Presentation & clarity: Is the writing clear, organized, logical? Do figures and tables communicate effectively?
  • References & background: Have authors cited relevant recent literature? Are any key works omitted?
  • Ethics & integrity: Watch for signs of plagiarism, data manipulation, duplicate publication, etc.
Structure & Tone of Your Review
  • Start with a brief summary
  • In your own words, restate what you understood as the central aim, methods, and findings of the manuscript.
  • Overall impression
  • Provide your view of the manuscript’s value, novelty, and adequacy for publication in our journal.
  • Major issues
  • List the most significant concerns that must be addressed before acceptance (e.g. methodological flaws, unsupported conclusions).
  • Minor issues / technical points
  • List smaller corrections (e.g. clarity, wording, references, formatting).
  • Suggestions
  • Whenever you point out an issue, suggest ways the authors might improve or clarify.
  • Recommendation
  • Give your suggested verdict (e.g., accept, minor revision, major revision, reject). This is submitted to the editor; avoid stating your recommendation in author-facing comments.
  • Confidential notes to the editor
  • Use this section for ethical concerns, possible conflicts, or other sensitive issues you don’t want to include in comments to the authors.
Ethical & Procedural Responsibilities
  • As a reviewer, you are expected to adhere to high ethical standards throughout the process
  • Provide fair, unbiased evaluation of each manuscript based solely on its scientific merit, irrespective of the authors’ identity, affiliation, nationality, seniority, or reputation.
  • Disclose any conflict of interest before accepting a review. This may include personal, financial, institutional, or professional relationships that could bias your judgment.
  • Maintain strict confidentiality. Do not share manuscript contents, review discussions, or correspondence with anyone outside the review process without explicit permission from the editor.
  • Do not upload unpublished manuscript files, images, or data to any public or third-party database or tool that does not ensure confidentiality (e.g. public AI tools).
  • Prepare your review independently, unless you obtain prior permission from the editor to involve another qualified person. Do not impersonate others.
  • Do not use AI or automated large language model tools to generate your review report.
  • Provide a constructive, evidence-based, and substantive review. If you suggest references, ensure they are accurate and verifiable.
  • Avoid any language that could be perceived to question a person’s integrity or reputation.
  • Make a sincere effort to submit your report and recommendation on time. If delays are inevitable, communicate with the editor in advance.
  • Notify the editor if you detect similarity between the manuscript and published or submitted work you know of (possible redundancy or plagiarism).
After Revision
  • If invited to re-review a revised version, check whether authors have addressed your previous concerns.
  • Avoid reintroducing issues already resolved unless new problems emerge.
  • Compare the new version to the original; evaluate added experiments, clarifications, or responses thoughtfully.
  • You may or may not be asked to review again, depending on how major the revisions are.
Tips for High-Quality Reviews
  • Be fair and generous: highlight strengths as well as weaknesses.
  • Be specific: refer to line numbers, figure numbers, or sections when pointing out issues.
  • Prioritise issues: start with the most critical flaws or omissions.
  • Use polite, encouraging tone, avoid harsh or personal language.
  • Keep the review focused and structured to make it easier for authors to act.
  • When in doubt, frame your statement as a question or suggestion rather than an absolute judgment.