Information for Reviewers

"We sincerely appreciate the scholars who dedicate their time to reviewing articles submitted to our journals. A thorough peer-review process is fundamental to ensuring the quality of academic publishing."
— The GBP editorial team.

1. Peer Review and Editorial Procedure

Peer review is a vital component of the publishing process, ensuring that GBP upholds the highest standards for its published papers. All manuscripts submitted to our journals undergo a comprehensive peer-review process by qualified experts.

Upon submission, the Managing Editor will first conduct a technical pre-check of the manuscript. A suitable academic editor will then be assigned to carry out an editorial pre-check, suggest reviewers, and decide whether to proceed with peer review, reject the manuscript, or request revisions prior to review. If the peer review continues, the Editorial Office will coordinate the process, ensuring that independent experts provide at least two review reports per manuscript. Authors are asked to make sufficient revisions (with a second round of review if needed) before a final decision is made. The final decision rests with an academic editor, typically the Editor-in-Chief, a member of the Editorial Board, or the Guest Editor for Special Issues. Once accepted, manuscripts are copy-edited and undergo internal English language editing.

2. Reviewers’ Profile and Responsibilities

Reviewers play a crucial role in maintaining the integrity of the academic record. Each reviewer is expected to evaluate manuscripts in a timely, transparent, and ethical manner, adhering to established best practices for peer review.

Reviewers must meet the following criteria:

  • No conflicts of interest with any authors;
  • Not affiliated with the same institution as the authors;
  • No publications with the authors in the past three years;
  • Hold a PhD or MD (for medical journals);
  • Have relevant experience and a proven publication record in the field (e.g., on Scopus, ORCID);
  • Be experienced scholars in the manuscript's subject area;
  • Hold a recognized academic affiliation.

GBP aims to maintain a robust peer-review process to ensure each manuscript is thoroughly assessed. Reviewers who agree to assess a manuscript are expected to:

  • Have the expertise needed to evaluate the scientific quality of the manuscript;
  • Provide detailed, high-quality review reports and remain engaged throughout the peer review process;
  • Uphold professionalism and ethical standards throughout the review.

3. Reviewers’ Benefits

Although reviewing is often an overlooked task, it is crucial to the academic process, and we strive to acknowledge the efforts of all our reviewers.

Reviewing for GBP journals offers the following benefits:

  • For each manuscript reviewed, reviewers may receive a discount voucher code for a reduction in the article processing charge (APC) for a future submission to any GBP journal. These vouchers are tied to the reviewer’s email address and can be applied online during submission or at any time before the manuscript is accepted. Note that vouchers cannot be used once an invoice is issued, which happens after acceptance. If your article is rejected, the voucher can be applied to the next submission. Reviewer vouchers are combinable with IOAP and affiliated society discounts.
  • Vouchers can also be used to cover Author Services professional English editing fees.
  • Reviewers receive a personalized reviewer certificate.
  • Reviewers are eligible for the "Outstanding Reviewer Awards."
  • Reviewers are included in the journal’s annual acknowledgment of reviewers if more than 50 reviewers contributed in the previous year.
  • Exceptional reviewers may be invited to join the Reviewer Board (subject to Editor-in-Chief approval).
  • Reviewers can create a profile on the Web of Science Reviewer Recognition Service (formerly Publons) and automatically have their reviewing activity added for participating journals. The Web of Science Reviewer Recognition Service profiles can be integrated with ORCID.

4. Reviewer Board

The Reviewer Board (RB) is composed of experienced researchers who regularly support journals by providing thorough, high-quality, and transparent reviews of manuscripts within their field of expertise. The initial membership term is one year, after which it can be renewed or ended. Members of the RB share the same responsibilities and benefits as regular reviewers, with the following additional expectations:

  • RB Members are required to review at least 6 manuscripts per year. If unable to complete a review, they must suggest alternative reviewers who meet the criteria outlined in Section 2.
  • RB Members receive an RB certificate.
  • RB Members are publicly acknowledged on the journal’s website.
  • Active RB Members may be considered for promotion to the Topical Advisory Panel (subject to approval by the Editor-in-Chief).

5. Volunteer Reviewers

GBP journals actively seek volunteers to review manuscripts. Both Reviewer Board Members and Volunteer Reviewers can offer to review manuscripts for any of GBP’s journals.

To join this program, applicants must meet the criteria outlined in Section 2, "Reviewers’ Profile and Responsibilities."

To apply, please submit your application. The editorial office of the selected journal will be notified, and our internal team will review your qualifications, including your background and any potential ethical concerns. If your application is approved, you will be notified.

Active Volunteer Reviewers may be promoted to Reviewer Board Members (subject to Editor-in-Chief approval).

6. General Guidelines for GBP Reviewers Recruiting Program

To apply to review a manuscript, both Reviewer Board members and Volunteer Reviewers can visit the "Recruiting Reviewers" section in the Submission System (OJS). This option can be found under the "Reviewers Menu" on the left-hand side. Here, you will find all available manuscripts for which you may apply. You can search by journal or keyword. If you find a manuscript you'd like to review, click "Apply." The Editorial Office of the respective journal will be notified of your application. Our internal team will assess your research background and check for any potential conflicts of interest. If your application is approved, you will be able to proceed with reviewing.

Please note that you can only view and apply for manuscripts in journals where you are a member of the Reviewer Board or a Volunteer Reviewer.

7. General Guidelines for Reviewers

7.1. Invitation to Review

Manuscripts submitted to GBP journals undergo a review process by at least two experts, which may include volunteer reviewers, Reviewer Board members, or reviewers suggested by the academic editor during the initial check. Reviewers are asked to assess the manuscript quality and provide a recommendation to the external editor regarding whether the manuscript should be accepted, revised, or rejected.

We kindly ask invited reviewers to:

  • Accept or decline invitations promptly, based on the manuscript title and abstract.
  • Suggest alternative reviewers if unable to accept the invitation.
  • Request a deadline extension as early as possible if more time is needed to provide a thorough review.

7.2. Potential Conflicts of Interest

Reviewers must disclose any potential conflicts of interest and contact the journal Editorial Office if unsure whether a situation constitutes a conflict. Potential conflicts of interest include (but are not limited to):

  • The reviewer and author(s) are from the same institution.
  • The reviewer has collaborated with the author(s), co-authored papers, shared joint grants, or had any other academic connection within the last three years.
  • The reviewer has a close personal relationship, rivalry, or hostility toward any of the authors.
  • The reviewer stands to gain or lose financially from the paper’s publication.
  • The reviewer has any other non-financial conflicts of interest (political, personal, religious, ideological, academic, intellectual, commercial, or any other).

Reviewers should disclose any situation that could be perceived as bias, whether for or against the manuscript or the authors.

Please note that if a reviewer is invited to assess a manuscript that they previously reviewed for another journal, this is not considered a conflict of interest. In such cases, reviewers should inform the Editorial Office if the manuscript has been improved since the previous review.

Reviewers are also encouraged to consult the relevant sections of the Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

7.3. Declaration of Confidentiality

GBP journals operate single- or double-blind peer review. Until the article is published, reviewers must keep the manuscript content, including the Abstract, confidential. Reviewers should also ensure their identity is not revealed to the authors, either in their comments or in metadata for reports submitted in Microsoft Word or PDF format. If a reviewer wishes to have a colleague complete the review on their behalf, they must inform the Editorial Office, and the colleague must meet the same criteria listed in Section 2.

GBP journals allow authors to choose Open Peer Review, which allows the review reports to be published alongside the manuscript (with the reviewer’s permission). However, this will only occur at publication with the reviewer’s consent. In all other cases, review reports are confidential and will only be disclosed with the explicit permission of the reviewer.

7.4. Review Reports

Review reports must be prepared in English. Below are general guidelines for writing your review report:

  • Read the entire manuscript as well as any supplementary material, paying close attention to figures, tables, data, and methods.
  • Provide a critical analysis of both the article as a whole and the specific sections and key concepts.
  • Ensure your comments are detailed enough for the authors to understand and address the points raised.
  • Reviewers must avoid recommending citations of their own work, that of close colleagues, or other journals unless clearly necessary to improve the manuscript’s quality.
  • Reviewers should not recommend excessive self-citation, honorary citations, or articles from the journal to increase citations. References should only be provided if they directly enhance the quality of the manuscript.
  • Maintain a neutral and constructive tone, focusing on helping the authors improve their work. Derogatory comments will not be accepted.
  • Reviewers must not use GenAI tools or large language models (LLMs) when preparing review reports. Reviewers are fully responsible for their report content, and using such tools may breach confidentiality, proprietary, and data privacy rights. While tools to check grammar, structure, spelling, punctuation, and formatting may be acceptable, their use should be disclosed in the review report. Under no circumstances should manuscripts, images, figures, or any related content be uploaded to GenAI tools, as it violates confidentiality policies. If AI tools are used inappropriately, the review will be discarded.

GBP journals follow several standards and guidelines, such as ICMJE (for medical journals), CONSORT (trial reporting), TOP (data transparency), PRISMA (systematic reviews), and ARRIVE (reporting of in vivo experiments). Reviewers should familiarize themselves with these guidelines and report any concerns about their implementation.

For further guidance on writing a critical review, please refer to the following resources:

  • COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers (Committee on Publication Ethics).
  • Hames, I. Peer Review and Manuscript Management in Scientific Journals: Guidelines for Good Practice. Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford, UK, 2007.
  • Writing a journal article review. Australian National University, Canberra, Australia, 2010.
  • Golash-Boza, T. How to Write a Peer Review for an Academic Journal: Six Steps from Start to Finish.

Review Reports should include the following:

  • A brief summary (one paragraph) outlining the paper’s aim, main contributions, and strengths.
  • General comments on the article, addressing weaknesses, the testability of the hypothesis, methodological inaccuracies, missing controls, etc.
  • Review comments on the completeness of the review topic, relevance, knowledge gaps identified, and the appropriateness of references.
  • Specific comments referencing line numbers, tables, or figures that point out inaccuracies or unclear sentences. These should focus on scientific content, not spelling, formatting, or English language issues, as those will be handled by internal staff later.

General questions for reviewing research articles:

  • Is the manuscript clear, relevant, and well-structured?
  • Are the cited references mostly recent (within the last 5 years) and relevant? Are self-citations excessive?
  • Is the manuscript scientifically sound, and is the experimental design appropriate for testing the hypothesis?
  • Are the manuscript’s results reproducible based on the methods section?
  • Are figures/tables/images/schemes appropriate and easy to interpret? Is data analysis correctly performed and presented?
  • Are the conclusions supported by the evidence?
  • Are ethics and data availability statements sufficient?

General questions for reviewing review articles:

  • Is the review comprehensive, clear, and relevant to the field? Does it identify a knowledge gap?
  • Is this review still relevant compared to similar reviews recently published?
  • Are references mostly recent and relevant? Are any critical references omitted? Is there excessive self-citation?
  • Are the conclusions well-supported by citations?
  • Are figures/tables/images/schemes appropriate and clear?

The content of your review report will be assessed by an Academic Editor, considering both scientific accuracy and the general usefulness of the review. These assessments may impact the promotion of Reviewer Board Members, Volunteer Reviewers, and regular Reviewers.

 

7.5. Manuscript Evaluation Rating

During the manuscript evaluation process, please assess the following criteria:

  • Novelty: Is the research question original and clearly defined? Do the results contribute to advancing the current knowledge in the field?
  • Scope: Does the manuscript align with the journal’s scope?
  • Significance: Are the results properly interpreted? Are the conclusions justified and supported by the data? Are the hypotheses clearly defined?
  • Quality: Is the article well-written? Are the data and analyses presented in a clear and appropriate manner? Does the paper meet the highest presentation standards?
  • Scientific Soundness: Is the study well-designed and technically robust? Are the analyses performed with the highest standards? Is the data strong enough to support the conclusions? Are methods, tools, software, and reagents described in sufficient detail to allow replication? Is the raw data correct and available (if applicable)?
  • Interest to the Readers: Are the conclusions relevant to the readership of the journal? Will the paper attract a broad or more limited audience? (Refer to the journal's aims and scope.)
  • Overall Merit: Does the work contribute valuable knowledge to the field? Does it address a significant research question with innovative experiments? Does it present valid negative results based on sound scientific hypotheses?
  • English Language: Is the language clear and understandable?

7.6. Overall Recommendation

Please provide an overall recommendation for the next stage of the manuscript processing:

  • Accept in Present Form: The manuscript is ready for acceptance with no changes needed.
  • Accept after Minor Revisions: The manuscript can be accepted with minor revisions based on reviewer comments. Authors are given five days to make the revisions.
  • Reconsider after Major Revisions: Acceptance depends on the revisions. Authors should respond to reviewer comments point-by-point and provide justification if certain comments cannot be addressed. Authors should submit the revised version within ten days, with a maximum of two rounds of major revisions. If the revisions will take longer than two months, the authors will be advised to withdraw and resubmit later to avoid delays and ensure quality revisions.
  • Reject: The manuscript has significant flaws or lacks originality and should be rejected without an opportunity for resubmission.

Note: Your recommendation is for the journal editors only and will not be shared with the authors. Decisions should be well justified.

7.7. Guidelines for Reviewing Registered Reports

The review process for Registered Reports involves two stages. In Stage 1, reviewers evaluate the study proposal before data collection. In Stage 2, reviewers assess the full study, including results and interpretation.

  • Stage 1 Review: Reviewers evaluate:

    • The importance and scientific soundness of the proposed hypotheses.
    • The suitability and feasibility of the experimental and analytical methodologies.
    • Whether sufficient detail is provided for replicating the proposed methods and analyses.
    • Whether appropriate outcome-neutral tests (e.g., positive controls, quality checks) are included.

  • Stage 2 Review: Reviewers assess:

    • Whether the data adequately tests the hypotheses using outcome-neutral conditions.
    • Whether the hypotheses tested are consistent with those approved in Stage 1.
    • Whether the authors adhered to the approved methods or justified any changes.
    • Whether new analyses (not mentioned in Stage 1) are methodologically sound.
    • Whether the conclusions are justified by the data.

7.8. Guidelines for Reviewers

Reviewers can deposit their review activities into their ORCID profile if their ORCID account is linked to their OJS account. Reviewers should register an OJS account and connect it to their ORCID profile for easier management of review records.