GJPIR adopts a rigorous double-blind peer review system to uphold the highest standards of academic integrity, transparency, and scholarly excellence.
Under this system:
The identity of authors is concealed from reviewers
The identity of reviewers is concealed from authors
Editorial decisions are made based solely on academic merit and quality
This approach minimizes bias and ensures an impartial evaluation process. All manuscripts submitted to the journal undergo a multi-stage evaluation process before acceptance for publication.
2. Initial Editorial Assessment (Desk Review)
Upon submission, each manuscript is subjected to an initial screening conducted by the editorial office or handling editor.
The purpose of this stage is to evaluate:
Relevance to the aims and scope of the journal
Compliance with author guidelines and formatting requirements
Basic academic quality and clarity of presentation
Originality of the manuscript, including plagiarism screening
Ethical compliance (e.g., approvals, declarations if applicable)
Possible Outcomes at this Stage:
Proceed to peer review
Request for technical corrections
Desk rejection (if unsuitable or below minimum standards)
This step ensures that only academically sound and relevant manuscripts proceed to external review.
3. Assignment to Reviewers
Manuscripts that pass the initial screening are assigned to at least two independent expert reviewers.
Reviewer Selection Criteria:
Subject-matter expertise
Academic and research experience
No conflict of interest with the authors
Prior reviewing or publication experience (preferred)
Reviewers may be selected from:
Academic institutions
Research organizations
Industry experts (where relevant)
4. Double-Blind Review Process
The journal strictly follows a double-blind review mechanism, ensuring authors do not know reviewer identities and reviewers do not know author identities.
All identifying information is removed from the manuscript prior to review.
5. Evaluation Criteria
Reviewers are requested to assess manuscripts based on the following criteria:
5.1 Originality and Contribution
Novelty of the research
Contribution to existing literature
Relevance to current academic or industry developments
5.2 Methodological Rigor
Appropriateness of research design
Validity and reliability of methods
Data analysis and interpretation
5.3 Clarity and Structure
Logical organization of content
Clarity of language and presentation
Coherence between sections
5.4 Relevance and Impact
Alignment with journal scope
Practical or theoretical significance
Potential for future research or application
5.5 Ethical Compliance
Proper citation and referencing
Absence of plagiarism
Ethical conduct of research
6. Reviewer Recommendations
After evaluation, reviewers provide detailed comments and one of the following recommendations:
Options include: Accept without revision, Accept with minor revisions, Major revisions required, or Reject.
Reviewers are encouraged to provide constructive, specific, and actionable feedback.
7. Editorial Decision-Making
The final decision is made by the Editor-in-Chief or assigned editor, based on:
Reviewer comments and recommendations
Quality and validity of the manuscript
Journal standards and priorities
In case of conflicting reviews:
A third reviewer may be assigned
Editorial judgment will be applied
The editorial decision is final and binding.
The final decision is made by the Editor-in-Chief based on reviews and journal standards. The editorial decision is final and binding.
8. Revision Process
If revisions are requested:
Authors must submit a revised manuscript along with a response to reviewer comments
Each comment must be addressed clearly
Revised manuscripts may be sent for re-review
Failure to submit revisions within the specified time may result in withdrawal of the manuscript.
9. Review Timeline
GJPIR strives to maintain an efficient and timely review process:
Initial screening
3–5 working days
Reviewer assignment
2–3 days
Peer review process
2–4 weeks
Final decision
Within 30 days (average)
Delays may occur in exceptional cases, but efforts are made to minimize them.
10. Confidentiality and Anonymity
The journal maintains strict confidentiality throughout the review process:
Manuscripts are treated as confidential documents
Reviewers must not share, discuss, or use manuscript content
Reviewer identities are not disclosed to authors
Any breach of confidentiality will be considered a serious ethical violation.
11. Conflict of Interest
All participants in the review process must disclose any potential conflicts of interest. Reviewers must decline review if:
They have a personal or professional relationship with the authors
They have competing research interests
Any bias may affect objective judgment
Editors will ensure that conflicts are managed appropriately.
12. Ethical Oversight During Review
If ethical concerns arise during review (e.g., plagiarism, data fabrication, duplicate submission):
The manuscript may be suspended or rejected
Authors may be asked for clarification
Further action may be taken as per journal policies
13. Reviewer Conduct and Responsibilities
Reviewers are expected to:
Provide objective, unbiased, and constructive feedback
Complete reviews within the assigned timeline
Maintain professionalism in comments
Avoid personal criticism
The journal values reviewers’ contributions as essential to maintaining publication quality.
14. Transparency and Accountability
GJPIR is committed to:
Maintaining a transparent review process
Ensuring accountability at all stages
Continuously improving editorial and review standards
