Reviewers Rights

At Global Journals®, we believe that peer review is a partnership between authors, reviewers, and editors. Reviewers are essential custodians of scientific integrity, and we are committed to protecting their rights, recognizing their contributions, and creating an environment of trust, fairness, and mutual respect. Below, we set out the rights every reviewer should expect when working with us.

What Reviewers Do?
  • Reviewers play an essential role in scholarly publishing. Below is an expanded view of their tasks, purpose, and value, tailored to Global Journals®.
  • Evaluate the Manuscript - Technical and Scholarly Review
  • Reviewers deeply assess the research: methods, design, data, analyses, and conclusions.
  • They check for accuracy, completeness, coherence, reproducibility, and whether results are supported by evidence.
  • They examine clarity of presentation, organization, writing quality, logical flow, and consistency.
  • They verify that all relevant literature is cited, identify gaps or misinterpretations, and flag errors, inconsistencies, or omissions.
  • In short, reviewers act as subject-matter experts who vet whether the manuscript meets rigorous scientific standards.
  • Judge Fit, Scope & Relevance
  • Beyond technical soundness, reviewers judge whether the work fits the journal’s aims, audience, and standards.
  • They assess novelty, originality, and potential impact.
  • They consider whether the manuscript’s findings will engage readers, contribute meaningfully to the field, or advance knowledge.
  • If parts of the manuscript are outside the scope, they may suggest focusing, narrowing, or restructuring.
  • Provide Constructive Feedback & Suggestions
  • Reviewers explain strengths and weaknesses in clear, respectful, actionable language.
  • They may suggest improvements in methodology, analysis, interpretation, or presentation.
  • They can propose clarifications, additional experiments or data (if feasible), reorganization, or alternative approaches.
  • When finding weaknesses, good reviewers also propose solutions or helpful guidance rather than only pointing out flaws.
  • Recommend a Decision to the Editor
  • Reviewers provide a considered recommendation: accept, reject, or revise (minor/major).
  • They write separate comments for authors and (if needed) confidential remarks for the editor (e.g. about ethics, conflicts, concerns).
  • Though editors make the final decision, they rely heavily on reviewer assessments and insights.
  • Editors may accept, reject, or override suggestions, but they should justify departures (e.g. if reviewers disagree) to maintain transparency.
  • Monitor Revision & Follow-up (When Invited)
  • In some cases, reviewers may be asked to re-evaluate a revised version or provide input after author responses.
  • They compare changes against earlier concerns and check whether authors addressed criticisms.
  • They may also see anonymous comments from other reviewers to align perspectives.
  • Uphold Ethical Standards & Integrity
  • Reviewers watch for plagiarism, duplicate publication, data fabrication, or other misconduct.
  • They declare any conflicts of interest (financial, personal, institutional) that might bias their judgment.
  • They maintain confidentiality, they must not share manuscripts, reuse content, or use privileged knowledge outside the review process.
  • They should act impartially and avoid bias (e.g. based on author identity, institution, geography).
  • Contribute to the Scholarly Ecosystem
  • Reviewers enforce community standards, ensuring that only robust, credible research is published.
  • Their critiques help authors refine their work, improving overall quality of published literature.
  • They serve as academic citizens: returning service, fostering trust, and participating in the cycle of peer review.
  • They gain visibility with editors, enhance their reputation, and may be invited for future editorial roles or board membership.
Below are the rights that every reviewer working with Global Journals® should expect and be able to assert
  • Right to Clear Role & Expectations
  • Reviewers will be given clear instructions, evaluation criteria, and deadlines alongside every review request.
  • We will specify the review model (single-blind, double-blind, open) and any policies (e.g. whether reviewer comments are published).
  • If clarification is needed (e.g. about methodology, data, ethics), reviewers may request guidance or supplementary materials from the Editorial Office.
  • Right to Confidentiality & Anonymity
  • All manuscript files, reviewer comments, and correspondence are confidential.
  • Unless a reviewer opts in to signing their review, their identity is kept anonymous to authors.
  • If a reviewer wishes to reveal their identity or be recognized, that choice must be acknowledged and accepted by all involved parties (editor, authors).
  • Right to Accept or Decline
  • You may decline or recuse yourself from a review invitation if:
  • You feel the manuscript falls outside your expertise
  • You do not have sufficient time
  • You recognize a conflict of interest (past collaboration, institutional overlap, financial ties, personal bias)
  • If a conflict arises after acceptance, you should inform the editor and recuse yourself.
  • Right to Reasonable Workload & Scheduling
  • You will not be overburdened with excessive simultaneous review assignments.
  • If you require extra time beyond the deadline, you may request an extension, editors will strive to accommodate.
  • You should not be pressured to review manuscripts outside your domain or beyond your capacity.
  • Right to Access Key Information & Resources
  • If important references, datasets, or supplementary files are missing, you may ask the Editorial Office to provide them.
  • When necessary, the editor may facilitate access or clarification to ensure you can evaluate the manuscript fairly.
  • Right to Provide Confidential and Public Reports
  • You may send confidential remarks to the editor in addition to comments for authors.
  • You may also choose to give a signed or anonymous version of your review, depending on the journal’s policy.
  • You have the right to be consulted during revisions or to review author responses if requested by editors.
  • Right to Recognition & Professional Credit
  • Upon request, we issue Review Certificates acknowledging your service with Global Journals®.
  • Outstanding reviewers may be publicly acknowledged in editorial pages, annual reports, or “Reviewer of the Year” highlights.
  • We support and encourage linking your reviewing activity to external platforms (e.g. ORCID, Publons) and will facilitate such integration.
  • In alignment with practices from leading publishers, we may also incorporate reviewer rewards or recognition systems (e.g. credit, discounts, acknowledgment) as part of our reviewer program.
  • Right to Feedback & Learning
  • Reviewers may receive feedback from editors, e.g. how their review was used, editorial decisions, quality reflections.
  • We encourage reviewers to access training materials, peer review workshops, and reviewer-development resources.
  • Periodically, we may survey reviewers to collect input on the reviewing experience and implement improvements.
  • Right to Fair, Ethical Treatment
  • Reviewers’ honest, well-reasoned criticism will be respected; personal or ad hominem attacks should not be used by authors or editors.
  • If you believe an editorial decision is unethical or biased, you may raise concerns with the Editor-in-Chief or the journal’s ethics office.
  • Reviewers may resign or opt out of future assignments at any time with due notice.
  • Right to Transparency in Final Decision
  • After review, you may access the final editorial decision and, when possible, anonymous peer comments from other reviewers (unless prevented by policy).
  • You have the right to understand how your review influenced the outcome.
How to Assert & Act on Your Rights
  • Before accepting
  • Check the manuscript’s scope, your expertise, time commitment, and any potential conflicts.
  • If uncertain
  • Ask for additional materials or clarifications before reviewing.
  • If delayed
  • Request an extension rather than rush the review.
  • If conflicts arise
  • Promptly disclose them to the editor
  • If you want credit
  • Request a certificate, link to ORCID/Publons, or express your preference about signing your review.
  • If you see misconduct
  • Raise concerns confidentially with editors or the journal’s ethics office.
  • After the process
  • Review how your comments were considered, take feedback, and help us improve the system.
Why These Rights Matter
  • Trust & Integrity
  • A respectful, transparent process strengthens confidence in peer review and helps prevent misconduct.
  • Motivation & Retention
  • Recognizing reviewers’ efforts encourages continued service and improves review quality.
  • Quality Enhancement
  • Clear feedback loops and resource support contribute to more constructive, rigorous reviews.
  • Community Building
  • Treating reviewers as partners (not just service providers) fosters a collaborative research ecosystem.