This journal endeavours to maintain the highest standards of peer review while increasing the efficiency of the process. All reviewers, Editorial Board and Editorial Team members must familiarise themselves with this Guideline document and will be kept accountable to it on an individual basis. 

Editorial Procedure

Upon submission, the journal’s Managing Editor / Section Editor will promptly conduct a technical pre-check of the manuscript. An appropriate Section Editor will be notified about the submission and invited to conduct an editorial pre-check and suggest peer reviewers. Section Editors in collaboration with the Managing Editor have the authority to proceed with the peer review process, reject the manuscript, or request revisions prior to peer review. If the peer review process continues, the Editorial Team will coordinate the review by independent experts, ensuring at least two review reports are gathered per manuscript.

All final publication decisions are made by the journal’s Editor-in-Chief and Managing Editor, based on the reviews provided. Members of the Editorial Board lend insight, advice and guidance to the Editorial Team generally and assist in decision-making on specific submissions. 

Accepted manuscripts undergo in-house copy editing, English editing, and layout editing. The Editorial Team provides the administrative support that allows the journal to maintain the integrity of peer-review while delivering reasonable turnaround and efficiency to authors, reviewers and editors alike.

Peer-review

All research articles published undergo full double-blind peer-review, key characteristics of which are listed below: 

The review process is an important aspect of the publication process of an article. It helps an editor in making a decision on an article and also enables the author to improve the manuscript. 

All research articles are reviewed by at least two suitably qualified experts (PhD holders) who have relevant experience and a proven publication record in the field of the submitted paper. 

To ensure consistency and efficiency, peer reviewers complete their evaluations on our website using a standardised form with closed-ended questions for core aspects of the manuscript, such as content, relevance, structure, and quality. Additionally, dedicated sections for providing detailed comments allow for in-depth feedback.

Before accepting to review a manuscript, reviewers should ensure that: 

• the manuscript is within their area of expertise.
• they can dedicate the appropriate time to conduct a critical review of the manuscript.

To maintain the integrity of the double-blind peer-review process, an individual cannot act as a reviewer for a manuscript where any of the following apply:

1. They are based at the same institution as any of the authors.
2. They have collaborated with any of the authors within the last 2 years.
3. They know the identity of the authors.
4. Any other reason whereby the reviewer feels there is a conflict of interest which must be declared including but not limited to financial interests, personal disagreement or professional opportunism.

In any of these instances, the concerns must be raised to the Editor-in-Chief or Managing Editor at the earliest possible opportunity. The reviewer must take responsibility for being transparent if any ethical concerns arise.

Conflict of Interest 

“Conflict of interest (COI) exists when there is a divergence between an individual’s private interests (competing interests) and his or her responsibilities to scientific and publishing activities such that a reasonable observer might wonder if the individual’s behaviour or judgment was motivated by considerations of his or her competing interests” WAME. 

”Reviewers should declare their conflicts of interest and recuse themselves from the peer-review process if a conflict exists”. 

Confidentiality 

Manuscripts are confidential materials given to a reviewer in trust for the sole purpose of critical evaluation. Reviewers should ensure that the review process is confidential. Details of the manuscript and the review process should remain confidential during and after the review process. 

Reviewers must not use AI or AI-assisted tools to review submissions or to generate peer-review reports. Reviewers are solely responsible for the content of their reports and the use of AI technologies for this purpose constitutes a breach of peer review confidentiality.

Fairness 

Reviews should be honest and objective. Reviewers should not be influenced by: 

• The origin of the manuscript
• Religious, political or cultural viewpoint of the author
• Gender, race, ethnicity or citizenry of the author

If the reviewer notices any instances of scientific misconduct, fraud, plagiarism, or other unethical behaviour concerning the manuscript, they should promptly inform the Section Editor. 

Review Reports/Forms 

In evaluating a manuscript, reviewers focus on the following: 

• Originality 
• Contribution to the field 
• Technical quality 
• Clarity of presentation 
• Depth of research 

Reviewers should also: 

• Observe that the author(s) have followed the instructions for authors and the GJSD policies, and
• Observe that the GJSD’s reporting guidelines are followed.

The review should be accurate, objective, constructive and unambiguous.  Comments should be backed by facts and constructive arguments with regards to the content of the manuscript. Reviewers should avoid using “hostile, derogatory and accusatory comments” (PIE http://www.integrity-ethics.com/). 

Reviewers should not rewrite the manuscript; however, necessary corrections and suggestions for improvements can be made when absolutely necessary.

If the review report does not meet our quality standards, you may be asked to revise the report. 

Timeliness 

Reviewers should only accept manuscripts that they are confident that they can dedicate appropriate time in reviewing. Thus, reviewers should review and return manuscripts in a timely manner. 

Recommendations 

Reviewers’ recommendation should be either: 

• Accepted with 
• ... no revision 
• ... minor revision 
• ... major revision 
• Rejected 

The recommendation should be backed with constructive arguments and facts based on the content of the manuscript.  

Peer review of referred papers 

The Editorial Team will decide promptly whether to accept, reject, or request revisions of referred papers based on the reviews and editorial insight of the supporting journals. In addition, Editors will have the option of seeking additional reviews when needed. Authors will be advised when Editors decide further review is needed.