The Review Process

The Manuscript Review Process

The manuscript review process for GJSEPER is a rigorous, fair and constructive process of single blind expert review that is aimed towards quality enhancement. Whilst ensuring rigour and academic quality and making comment upon the manuscript presented (quality control), each reviewer will be required to make constructive comments regarding ways in which manuscripts could be improved (quality enhancement).

Initial scrutiny:

Once submitted to GJSEPER each manuscript will be read by the Editor in Chief or one of the Associate Editors in Chief to evaluate the article in relation to its suitability within the scope of the journal, to make judgement upon the standard of academic written English. If a manuscript does not pass this initial ‘screening’ process, it will be returned to the author with an explanation for its return. If the manuscript could subsequently fit within the scope of the journal, advice regarding improvements necessary to progress through this initial scrutiny process will be offered.

Single blind peer review:

Once approved through the initial scrutiny process, the corresponding author will be informed and the manuscript will be sent to two expert reviewers who may or may not be members of the named editorial advisory board. If authors are aware of established academics who might be suitable as reviewers for their manuscript, they should provide names and full contact details (including email), areas of expertise and a statement declaring their independence from the nominated reviewers (maximum 2). The editorial team reserves the right not to use any of the nominated reviewers. As a single blind review process, the reviewers will be able to identify the authors from the title page of the article, but the authors of the article will not be made aware of the names of the reviewers.  Whilst the review process will be as expedite as possible, it should be remembered that all reviewers are volunteers who review without any form of payment and whilst it is suggested to reviewers that they should return their reviews within 6 weeks, this cannot always be maintained. Where any author believes that their paper has been in review for too long (after this 6 week period) they should contact the editorial team at gjseper@worc.ac.uk.

Each reviewer will complete a peer review form and return it to the editorial team with their publication recommendation. The editorial team will then assimilate the feedback from the two reviewers and send one formal peer review response to the corresponding author.

At this point the following outcomes may be used: 

• Accept
• Accept with minor revisions – revised re-submission required within 20 days*.
• Resubmit with major revisions – revised re-submission required within 60 days*.
• Reject.

*in certain circumstances and if necessary in order to include the article in the next issue, these deadlines may be reduced in consultation with the author.

The amount of feedback, general comments and specific comments will be expected to reflect the outcome decided and in all cases, advice will be given in relation to how the manuscript could be enhanced. A revised re-submission will be sent to the same original reviewers, who will again complete a full review and return their comments and recommendation to the editorial team. The editorial team will again relay the assimilated publication outcome to the corresponding author. Any revised manuscripts not received within the required resubmission deadline will be treated as a new submission and begin the review process again from the beginning.

Once an article is finally accepted, the editorial team will work with the corresponding author to prepare the article for publication resulting in creation of a final pdf proof that must be approved and returned by the corresponding author within one week of its receipt.

Accepted articles will be published in the order in which the final proof is approved and in the next available issue of GJSEPER.There is no appeal procedure possible against the nature, conduct or outcome of the review and the editorial team’s decision is final in all matters.

Please note that GJSEPER makes no representation or warranty whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the content of any article. Any opinions and views expressed in articles published in GJSEPER are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by GJSEPER. The accuracy of the content of any article should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. GJSEPER will not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the content of any article.