Editorial Process
The GBP Editorial Process
GBP operates a rigorous and transparent peer review process that aims to maximize quality; it is handled by researchers and scholars. We believe that peer review should be efficient, rigorous, and fair for everyone involved. For most GBP journals, peer review is a single-blind assessment with at least two independent reviewers, followed by a final acceptance/rejection decision by the Editor-in-Chief or another academic editor approved by the Editor-in-Chief. The Editor-in-Chief is responsible for the academic quality of the publication process, including acceptance decisions; the approval of external editors and topics for article collections, such as Special Issues, and appointing new Editorial Board members.
A summary of the editorial process is given in the flowchart below.
Pre-check
The pre-screening stage consists of two main steps: a technical pre-check performed by the Editorial Office and an editorial pre-check performed by an academic editor. Immediately after submission, the journal’s Managing Editor will perform the technical pre-check to assess:
- The overall suitability of the manuscript to the journal/Special Issue;
- Manuscript adherence to high-quality research and ethical standards;
- Standards of rigor to qualify for further review.
The academic editor (i.e., the Editor-in-Chief in the case of regular submissions, the Guest Editor in the case of Special Issue submissions and an Editorial Board member in the case of a conflict of interest and regular submissions if the Editor-in-Chief allows) will be notified of the submission and invited to perform an editorial pre-check. During the editorial pre-check phase, the academic editor will assess the suitability of the submission with respect to the scope of the journal, as well as the overall scientific soundness of the manuscript, including the relevance of the references and the correctness of the applied methodology. The academic editors can decide to reject the manuscript, request revisions before peer review, or continue with the peer review process and recommend suitable reviewers. Guest Editors of Special Issues, are not able to make decisions regarding their own manuscripts submitted to their Special Issue, as this would constitute a conflict of interest. An Editorial Board member will instead be responsible for decision making. The Guest Editor will be unable to access the review process except in their role as author. Similarly, Editors-in-Chief or other Editorial Board members are not able to access the review process of their manuscript except in their role as author.
Peer Review
From submission to final decision or publication, one dedicated GBP staff member coordinates the review process and serves as the main point of contact for authors, academic editors, and reviewers. The process is single-blind for most journals, meaning that the author does not know the identity of the reviewer, but the reviewer knows the identity of the author. Some GBP journals operate double-blind peer review, where in addition to the author not knowing the identity of the reviewer, the reviewer is unaware of the author’s identity. Conference journals operate a different peer review standard. The peer review process is handled by the conference committee, and the review method as well as the number of reports is decided by the conference organizers' requirements. At least two review reports are collected for each submitted article. The academic editor can suggest reviewers during pre-check. Alternatively, GBP editorial staff will use qualified Editorial Board members, qualified reviewers from our database, or new reviewers identified by web searches for related articles. Authors can recommend potential reviewers. GBP staff ensure that there are no potential conflicts of interest and will not consider those with competing interests. Authors can also enter the names of potential peer reviewers they wish to exclude from consideration in the peer review of their manuscript, during the initial submission of the manuscript. The Editorial Team will respect these requests as long as they do not interfere with the objective and thorough assessment of the submission. If the journal has a reviewer board, these reviewers could apply to review a submitted manuscript should the authors agree to this option during submission. The following criteria are applied to all reviewers:
- They should hold no conflicts of interest with any of the authors;
- They should not come from the same institution as the authors;
- They should not have published together with the authors in the last three years;
- They should hold a PhD or be a MD (applicable for medical journals);
- They should have relevant experience and have a proven publication record in the field of the submitted paper (Scopus or ORCID);
- They should hold an official and recognized academic affiliation.
Reviewers who are accepted to review a manuscript are expected to:
- Have the necessary expertise to judge manuscript quality;
- Provide quality review reports and remain responsive throughout peer review;
- Maintain standards of professionalism and ethics.
Reviewers who accept a review invitation are provided 7–10 days to write their review via our online platform. Extensions can be granted on request. When reviewing a revised manuscript, reviewers are asked to provide their report within three days. Extensions can also be granted on request. To assist academic editors, GBP staff handle all communication with reviewers, authors, and the external editor. Academic editors can check the status of manuscripts and the identity of reviewers at any time, and are able to discuss manuscript review at any stage with GBP staff.
Revision
When the decision is “Revision”, authors are notified by the Editorial Office regarding the requested changes. Authors are encouraged to resubmit their manuscript after performing the required revisions and addressing all reviewer and editor comments. Revisions may be returned to the reviewers or academic editor for a second round of review if requested by the academic editor, or directly evaluated by the editor. If authors choose not to address certain comments, they are required to provide a clear justification for their choice.
Final Decision
The academic editor makes the final decision on acceptance or rejection based on the reviewers’ reports and their own assessment. The possible decisions are:
- Accept: The manuscript is accepted for publication;
- Reject: The manuscript is rejected for publication;
- Request Revision: The manuscript is returned to the authors for additional revision and resubmission.
Authors are notified of the decision by the Editorial Office with reviewer comments and recommendations.
Post-Decision
For accepted articles, the authors will be guided through the production and publication process. This includes the formatting and proofreading stages, where authors are provided the opportunity to approve the final proofs of their article before publication. For rejected articles, authors can appeal the decision. Appeals are managed by the Editor-in-Chief or another senior editor, who will independently evaluate the manuscript and review process.
Conflicts of Interest
GBP follows the following guidelines and standards for its journals:
ICMJE
Medical GBP journals adhere to the guidelines set by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE). These recommendations address various aspects of journal management, including editorial processes, peer review practices, and resolving complaints. While originally designed for medical publications, most of the principles are also applicable to all GBP journals.
CONSORT
The CONSORT Statement provides standards for reporting randomized controlled trials. Authors are encouraged to cross-check their work using the checklist and flow diagram, submitting them alongside their manuscript.
TOP
The Transparency and Openness Promotion (TOP) Guidelines emphasize clear and open reporting of research. GBP journals strive to achieve level 1 or 2 compliance across all criteria. Specific expectations may differ and can be clarified by contacting the editorial office.
FAIR Principles
The FAIR Principles focus on enhancing the Findability, Accessibility, Interoperability, and Reusability of data.
PRISMA
The PRISMA Statement outlines requirements for systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Authors should complete the checklist and flow diagram and include them in their submission.
ARRIVE
The ARRIVE Guidelines provide standards for reporting in vivo studies. Authors are advised to review their work against these guidelines and attach the checklist with their submission.
iThenticate
iThenticate, a leading plagiarism detection tool, is employed during the initial manuscript screening (pre-check) and can also be used during peer review or prior to final acceptance.
Conflicts of Interest
GBP ensures that conflicts of interest are avoided throughout the editorial process. To prevent any biases, authors, reviewers, and editors must disclose all relevant competing interests at the point of submission, review, and publication. If a conflict of interest is identified, alternative editors or reviewers will be assigned to the manuscript.
Confidentiality
All submitted manuscripts and accompanying reviewer comments are treated as confidential material. Reviewers and editors are required to uphold strict confidentiality and are not permitted to share, use, or distribute any manuscript content for personal or professional purposes.
Editorial Board Responsibilities
Editorial Board members play a vital role in ensuring the quality and integrity of GBP journals. Their responsibilities include:
- Providing advice and feedback on the journal’s development and editorial policies;
- Assisting in the peer review process by recommending reviewers or reviewing manuscripts directly;
- Supporting GBP in promoting the journal and encouraging high-quality submissions.
Editorial Board members must adhere to the highest standards of ethics and confidentiality.
Ethics and Misconduct
GBP adheres to COPE guidelines for ethical publishing and research. In cases of suspected misconduct (e.g., plagiarism, data falsification, duplicate publication), an investigation will be conducted by the Editorial Office and relevant experts. Appropriate actions, such as manuscript retraction or correction, will be taken if misconduct is confirmed.
Transparency
GBP values transparency throughout the editorial process. Key information regarding the review and publication process is available on the journal’s website. Authors and reviewers can track the status of submissions in real-time through the submission system.
Continuous Improvement
GBP is committed to continuously improving its editorial standards and processes. Regular training is provided to editors, and feedback from authors, reviewers, and readers is actively solicited to enhance the publishing experience.