Review Guideline

Reviewer Guidelines

 

Guidelines for conducting thorough, constructive, and ethical peer reviews for GJRSTUDIES

1

Review Process Overview

Understanding the double-blind peer review system and your role as a reviewer.

Double-Blind Review System

• Reviewers do not know the identity of authors
• Authors do not know the identity of reviewers
• Maintain confidentiality at all times
• Do not discuss the manuscript with others
• Destroy or delete manuscript files after review
• Do not use ideas from the manuscript for your own work
• Report any conflicts of interest immediately

Review Timeline and Deadlines

• Initial response to review invitation: 3 days
• Complete review submission: 3-4 weeks
• Emergency extensions available upon request
• Notify editor immediately if unable to meet deadline
• Review completion expected within agreed timeframe
• Prompt reviews help maintain journal's publication schedule

Late reviews delay the publication process and affect authors' career timelines

Reviewer Responsibilities

• Assess scientific quality and originality
• Evaluate methodology and data analysis
• Check for ethical compliance
• Verify proper citation and references
• Assess clarity and organization
• Provide constructive, specific feedback
• Maintain professional and respectful tone
• Recommend acceptance, revision, or rejection with clear justification

2

Evaluating Manuscripts

Criteria for assessing manuscripts and providing constructive feedback.

Scientific Quality and Originality

• Is the research question significant and clearly stated?
• Does the study contribute new knowledge to the field?
• Is the literature review comprehensive and current?
• Are hypotheses/research objectives clearly defined?
• Does the study address a genuine gap in knowledge?
• Is the theoretical framework appropriate?
• Are conclusions supported by the data presented?
• Are limitations adequately acknowledged?

Methodology and Data Analysis

• Is the research design appropriate for the research question?
• Are methods described in sufficient detail for replication?
• Is the sample size and selection justified?
• Are data collection instruments valid and reliable?
• Are statistical methods appropriate and correctly applied?
• Are results clearly presented (tables, figures)?
• Are ethical considerations addressed (IRB approval, consent)?
• Are data availability and sharing statements included?

Writing Quality and Presentation

• Is the manuscript well-organized and logical?
• Is the writing clear, concise, and grammatically correct?
• Are abstract and keywords appropriate?
• Are figures and tables clear, labeled, and referenced?
• Are references current, relevant, and properly formatted?
• Is the title accurate and descriptive?
• Does the manuscript adhere to journal formatting guidelines?
• Is the length appropriate for the content?

3

Writing the Review

How to structure your review and provide constructive feedback.

Review Structure

• Summary: Briefly summarize the manuscript in your own words
• Major Strengths: Highlight the manuscript's strongest contributions
• Major Concerns: Identify significant issues that need addressing
• Minor Issues: List smaller corrections and suggestions
• Recommendation: Clearly state your recommendation with justification
• Confidential Comments: Any concerns for editor only (plagiarism, ethics)
• Use numbered points for clarity and easy reference

Providing Constructive Feedback

• Be specific: Cite page numbers, line numbers, or specific sections
• Be constructive: Suggest solutions, not just identify problems
• Be respectful: Use professional, non-confrontational language
• Be balanced: Acknowledge strengths as well as weaknesses
• Be objective: Base comments on evidence, not personal preference
• Be focused: Prioritize major issues over minor formatting errors
• Use "I" statements: "I found this section confusing because..."
• Avoid absolute language: Instead of "wrong," say "might be reconsidered"

Recommendation Options

• Accept as is: Manuscript requires no revisions (rare)
• Minor revisions: Small changes needed, no further review required
• Major revisions: Significant changes needed, manuscript should be re-reviewed
• Reject: Manuscript has fundamental flaws or does not fit journal scope
• Reject with encouragement to resubmit: Major issues but promising idea
• Clearly justify your recommendation with specific reasons
• Distinguish between mandatory changes and suggested improvements
• Indicate which comments are essential for addressing vs. optional suggestions

Ethical Guidelines for Reviewers

• Maintain strict confidentiality of the manuscript
• Declare conflicts of interest before accepting review
• Do not contact authors directly
• Do not use unpublished information from the manuscript
• Complete reviews personally (no delegation without permission)
• Do not request excessive citations of your own work
• Report suspected plagiarism, duplicate publication, or ethical violations
• Treat all manuscripts fairly, regardless of author's identity or institution

Reviewers are expected to follow COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers

Reviewer Support

For questions about the review process or technical issues:
Editorial Office: editor@gjrstudies.org
Reviewer Support: reviewers@gjrstudies.org
Technical Support: support@gjrstudies.org
Response Time: 1-2 business days for reviewer inquiries

Thank you for contributing to the quality of scholarly publishing at GJRSTUDIES