Peer Review Process

The peer review process at the Journal of Global Integrated Research (JGIR) should be equitable, open, and positive. Our mission is to assist authors in bettering their work and making sure that the research we release is trustworthy, worthwhile and of high quality academic work.

All the manuscripts that are required to be published by JGIR undergo a formal review process before they are accepted to be published.

Why Peer Review Matters

Peer review is a required aspect of academic communication. It:

  • Helps authenticate the validity of research.
  • Promotes effective and justified conclusions.
  • Matches manuscripts with professional advice.
  • Ensures the academic quality of the journal.

We consider peer review as a gatekeeping process but as a chance with an aim of authors to enhance their work.

How Our Peer Review Works

Rather than giving a stepwise list of steps in a long piece of writing, the following is the process as it occurs in practice:

1. Initial Editorial Check

Upon the reception of your manuscript, the editorial staff takes a quick look at it to ensure:

  • It is within the area of the journal.
  • It adheres to fundamental rules of submission.
  • There are all the necessary sections (abstract, references, figures, etc.).

In case there is something to fix at this point, the editorial office might call you to seek clarification on the same before progressing.

2. Double-Blind Review

Manuscripts that pass through the initial check are forwarded to undergo a double-blind peer review. This means:

  • The names of the authors are unknown to the reviewers.
  • The reviewers are not known to the authors.

This technique can be used to maintain the feedback as neutral and content-oriented.

3. Expert Feedback

Reviewers - professionals in the respective area will make a careful reading and provide their views on:

  • Clarity and organization
  • Research design and methodology.
  • Contribution to the field
  • Strengths and limitations

Their remarks assist in informing the authors as well as the editor to make wise decisions.

4. Editorial Decision

After the reviewer reports have been received, the editor looks at the feedback and makes a decision. The possible outcomes are:

  • Fit for publication - accepted as it is.
  • Minor amendments - minor amendments required.
  • Significant amendments - greater effort to be done.
  • Rejected - inappropriate to be published.

Authors then get a reviewer comment and decision as well as suggestions on how it could be improved.

Once Review: Revision and Resubmission

If revisions are requested:

  • Reviewer comments should be taken into consideration by the authors.
  • It is suggested that point-by-point response is advisable.
  • The revised manuscripts are expected to be resubmitted within the stipulated time.

It is always better to take time to be respectful and comprehensive as this would increase the possibility of acceptance.

Timing and Communication

We know that authors seek feedback in time. Although the reviewing time may vary according to the availability of the reviewers and the complexity of the manuscript, we will endeavor to:

  • Keep communication clear
  • Give an update where necessary.
  • Make decisions on the move without wasting time.

The editorial office is also fine to provide you with a status update, in case you require such.

Our Commitment

The quality, fairness, and academic integrity of JGIR are reflected in the peer review process. It establishes a synergistic association of the authors, reviewers, and editors in enhancing research and disseminating the knowledge to the rest of the research world.