Double Anonymized Review Process

This journal follows a double anonymized review process, ensuring that the identities of both authors and reviewers are concealed from each other. For more detailed information, please refer to our website. To facilitate this process, please provide the following separately:

Title Page (with author details): Include the title of the manuscript, names of the authors, affiliations, acknowledgements, any Declaration of Interest statement, and a complete address for the corresponding author, including an e-mail address.

Anonymized Manuscript (no author details): The main body of the paper, including references, figures, tables, and acknowledgements, should not contain any identifying information such as authors' names or affiliations.

Submission Procedure

Our online submission system will guide you through the process of entering your article details and uploading your files. The system will convert your article files into a single PDF file, which will be used for the peer-review process. Please ensure that you submit editable files (e.g., Word, LaTeX) to facilitate typesetting of your article for final publication. All correspondence, including the Editor's decision and revision requests, will be communicated via e-mail. Please submit your article through our online submission system at [provide submission link].

Suggesting Potential Reviewers

Please suggest the names and institutional e-mail addresses of several potential reviewers. Avoid suggesting reviewers who are colleagues or have co-authored or collaborated with you within the last three years. Reviewers with potential competing interests with the authors will not be invited by the Editors. In order to ensure a broad and balanced assessment of the work, and to maintain scientific rigor, please suggest diverse reviewers who are located in different countries/regions than the author group. Consider other diversity attributes, such as gender, race, ethnicity, career stage, etc. It is also important to exclude existing members of the journal's editorial team, as they are already known to the journal.

Note: The Editor retains the discretion to decide whether or not to invite the suggested reviewers.

Selection of Reviewers

The Editor will identify potential reviewers with expertise in the subject area relevant to your manuscript. While they may consider the suggestions provided by the authors, the final selection is at the Editor's discretion.

Review Process

Manuscript Evaluation

Manuscripts submitted to the journal are evaluated based on their contribution to research progress and the presentation of new insights into the investigated topic. It is assumed that all authors listed on a manuscript have agreed to its submission. The corresponding author's signature on the letter of submission confirms that these conditions have been met. Upon receipt, manuscripts undergo an initial examination by the GJSR editorial office. Those that are deemed to lack sufficient grounds for publication may be rejected without external evaluation. Manuscripts not prepared according to the advised style, as described below, will be returned to the authors for correction. Once the manuscript is assigned to an Editor, the authors will be notified with a reference number.

Peer Review Process

Assigned manuscripts are sent to 2-4 independent experts for scientific evaluation. The evaluation process typically takes an average of 1-2 months. Editors do not participate in the decision-making process for papers they have authored themselves, those authored by family members or colleagues, or those related to products or services in which they have an interest. Such submissions follow the journal's usual procedures, with peer review handled independently by other relevant editors and their research groups.

Reviewer Comments

Reviewers typically provide comments addressing specific sections or aspects of the manuscript. They may point out factual errors, suggest additional experiments or analyses, recommend revisions to enhance clarity, or provide overall recommendations regarding the suitability of publication.

Reviewer Recommendations

Based on their assessment, reviewers make a recommendation to the editor. Common recommendations include acceptance, minor revisions, major revisions, or rejection. Reviewers may also provide confidential comments to the editor that are not shared with the authors.

Editor's Decision The editor considers the reviewers' comments, recommendations, and their own evaluation of the manuscript. Based on this assessment, the editor makes a decision regarding acceptance, revision requirements, or rejection. The editor's decision is communicated to the authors, along with the reviewers' comments.

Revised Manuscripts

Authors are required to submit the revised version of their manuscripts within 2-4 weeks of receiving the editorial decision. Please note that revision does not guarantee acceptance for publication, as the revised submissions may undergo reevaluation. In response to reviewers' comments, authors must address each comment by providing a revision and/or response. If there is a disagreement with a reviewer's comment or suggestion, authors should provide a justification for their position. Any changes made to the manuscript should be clearly highlighted in the revised version to facilitate the reevaluation process.

Final Decision

Upon receipt of the revisions, the editor will review the revised manuscript to assess whether it meets the journal's standards. The editor may choose to send the manuscript back to the original reviewers for further evaluation or make a final decision based on their own judgment.

Resubmission of Rejected Manuscripts

If resubmitting a manuscript that was previously rejected by GJSR, authors should upload the following documents: the decision letter from the Editor requesting resubmission, the original reviewer comments for the rejected manuscript, the responses to the reviewer comments, and the original manuscript number. The resubmitted manuscript should clearly indicate, using colour, the revisions made in response to the reviewer's comments.