Peer Review Policy

Overview

The Journal of Global Research in Multidisciplinary Studies (JGRMS) is committed to maintaining the highest standards of academic quality, integrity, and transparency through a rigorous Double-Blind Peer Review process. Every manuscript submitted to the journal undergoes an independent evaluation by qualified experts to ensure that only high-quality, original, and scientifically sound research is published.

The journal follows a fair, objective, confidential, and timely peer review process to support authors and uphold the quality of scholarly communication.

Type of Peer Review

JGRMS follows a Double-Blind Peer Review system.

  • The identities of authors are not disclosed to reviewers.
  • The identities of reviewers are not disclosed to authors.
  • All manuscripts are reviewed impartially based solely on academic merit.

This process helps ensure fairness and minimizes potential bias.

Editorial Screening

After submission, each manuscript undergoes an initial screening by the Editorial Office to verify:

  • Relevance to the journal's scope.
  • Compliance with the Author Guidelines.
  • Completeness of the submission.
  • Adherence to ethical standards.
  • Acceptable English language quality.
  • Plagiarism screening.

Manuscripts that do not meet these basic requirements may be returned to the authors for correction or rejected before peer review.

Plagiarism Screening

All submissions are screened using plagiarism-detection software before they are sent for peer review.

Manuscripts with significant plagiarism, duplicate publication, or other forms of academic misconduct will be rejected in accordance with the journal's Publication Ethics Policy.

Reviewer Selection

Each manuscript is evaluated by at least two independent reviewers who have expertise in the relevant subject area.

Reviewers are selected based on:

  • Academic qualifications
  • Research experience
  • Publication record
  • Subject expertise
  • Absence of conflicts of interest

Editors ensure that reviewers are independent and capable of providing an objective assessment.

Review Criteria

Reviewers are requested to evaluate manuscripts based on:

  • Originality and novelty
  • Scientific quality
  • Methodological rigor
  • Significance of the research
  • Relevance to the journal's scope
  • Quality of data analysis
  • Validity of conclusions
  • Organization and clarity
  • Quality of references
  • Ethical compliance

Reviewers are encouraged to provide constructive comments that help authors improve their manuscripts.

Editorial Decision

Based on the reviewers' reports, the Editor-in-Chief or Handling Editor may make one of the following decisions:

  • Accept without revision
  • Accept with minor revisions
  • Major revisions required
  • Reject

The final publication decision rests solely with the Editor.

Revision Process

Authors receiving revision requests should:

  • Address each reviewer comment individually.
  • Submit a detailed response letter explaining how comments have been addressed.
  • Highlight changes made in the revised manuscript.

Failure to respond adequately may result in rejection.

Confidentiality

All submitted manuscripts are treated as confidential documents.

Editors and reviewers must not:

  • Share manuscripts with unauthorized individuals.
  • Use unpublished information for personal advantage.
  • Discuss manuscript content outside the review process.

Conflict of Interest

Editors and reviewers must disclose any conflicts of interest that could influence their judgment.

Examples include:

  • Personal relationships
  • Financial interests
  • Institutional affiliations
  • Recent collaborations
  • Competitive relationships

Individuals with significant conflicts will not participate in the review process.

Reviewer Responsibilities

Reviewers are expected to:

  • Provide objective, constructive, and evidence-based reviews.
  • Complete reviews within the requested timeframe.
  • Maintain confidentiality.
  • Identify relevant published work not cited by the authors.
  • Report suspected plagiarism, duplicate publication, or ethical concerns.
  • Avoid personal criticism.

Author Responsibilities

Authors are expected to:

  • Submit original work.
  • Respond to reviewer comments respectfully and comprehensively.
  • Revise manuscripts within the specified deadline.
  • Disclose conflicts of interest and funding sources.
  • Comply with the journal's ethical and editorial policies.

Appeals

Authors who disagree with an editorial decision may submit a written appeal to the Editor-in-Chief within 30 days of the decision.

Appeals should include:

  • A clear explanation of the grounds for the appeal.
  • A point-by-point response to the reviewers' comments, where applicable.
  • Any supporting evidence.

Appeals are reviewed independently, and the Editor-in-Chief's decision after the appeal process is final.

Peer Review Timeline

JGRMS strives to maintain an efficient editorial process. The typical timeline is:

Stage Estimated Time
Initial Editorial Screening 3–5 days
Reviewer Assignment 3–7 days
Peer Review 2–4 weeks
Author Revision 1–3 weeks
Final Editorial Decision 3–7 days
Online Publication (after acceptance) Within 7 days

These timelines are indicative and may vary depending on reviewer availability and the complexity of the manuscript.

Ethical Standards

The peer review process is conducted in accordance with internationally recognized principles of fairness, confidentiality, transparency, and research integrity.

Editors, reviewers, and authors are expected to comply with the journal's Publication Ethics Policy throughout the submission, review, and publication process.

Contact

For questions regarding the peer review process, authors may contact the Editorial Office through the contact information provided on the journal website.