for reviewers

PEER REVIEW AND EDITORIAL PROCEDURE 

The GAERPSY Publishing has a Digital Editorial Officer (DEO) attached to it, substantially reducing the traditional editorship's burden. 

This benefit enables the DEO to follow up on the review's progress more efficiently and update the author(s) accordingly. For example, the DEO is a personal administrator to the journal’s editor and editorial board members. 

The DEO builds a database of potential reviewers for the GAERPSY Publishing and receives all papers submitted to the our journals on behalf of the editor. Once the DEO receives the paper(s), they pass the desk review, including a check to ensure it fits within the journal’s scope. He/she approaches the potential reviewers on the GAERPSY journals database on behalf of the editor. 

When the DEO approaches potential reviewers, they list available papers for review, ensuring that reviewers can select papers that interest them. When the DEO has received the requisite number of reviews for manuscripts, he/she sends it to the editor. 

The role of the editor here is essentially to review the reviews of the reviewers and raise additional issues not captured by the reviewers, if necessary, rather than conducting a fresh review of the article. 

Almost all manuscripts submitted to us and reviewed are either rejected outright or require major or minor corrections. 

REVIEWER QUALIFICATIONS AND DUTIES 

The GAERPSY Publishing believes that reviewers play a crucial role in upholding the integrity and quality of the scholarly record. Each reviewer is expected to evaluate manuscripts in a timely, transparent, and ethical manner, in accordance with the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers.

Criteria for selection of reviewers: 

  • Have no conflicts of interest with any of the authors.
  • Not be affiliated with the same institution as the authors.
  • Not have co-authored publications with the authors within the past three years.
  • Hold a PhD on related fields.
  • Possess relevant expertise and a proven publication record in the field of the submitted manuscript such as Scopus, or ORCID.
  • Be experienced scholars in the area of submission.
  • Hold a recognised and verifiable academic affiliation.

 REVIEWERS’ BENEFITS 

The GAERPSY Publishing offers the following benefits to reviewers: 

  • Personalised reviewer certificate: Reviewers receive an official certificate acknowledging their valuable contribution to the journal’s scholarly excellence.
  • Editorial board opportunities: Outstanding reviewers may be invited to join the Editorial Board, which is subject to the Editor-in-chief's approval.
  • Professional development: Participating in peer review strengthens critical appraisal skills, enhances academic writing abilities, and deepens disciplinary expertise.
  • Academic visibility: Active reviewers gain recognition within the scholarly community and enhance their academic and professional profiles.
  • Contribution to scholarship: Reviewers play a crucial role in maintaining research quality, ensuring scientific integrity, and advancing knowledge within their respective fields.

GENERAL GUIDELINES FOR REVIEWERS 

At the GAERPSY Publishing, the submissions are evaluated by at least two expert volunteer reviewers, members of the Reviewer Board, or reviewers suggested by the academic editor. Reviewers are asked to assess the quality of the manuscript and recommend whether it should be accepted, revised, or rejected. Invited reviewers are asked to: 

  • Accept or decline invitations promptly (based on the manuscript title and abstract).
  • Suggest alternative qualified reviewers if declining.
  • Request deadline extensions early if additional time is needed.

At the GAERPSY Publishing, reviewers must declare any potential conflicts of interest. If uncertain, reviewers should contact the Editorial Office for clarification. Reviewers are encouraged to consult the COPE Ethical Guidelines for additional guidance. 

GAERPSY Publishing uses a double-blind peer-review process. Until publication, reviewers must treat all manuscript content, including the abstract, as strictly confidential. 

The GAERPSY Publishing advises that reviewers should avoid revealing their identities in comments or in file metadata, such as those in Microsoft Word or PDF. 

Review Reports 

The GAERPSY Publishing recommends reviewers these guidelines when preparing a review report: 

  • Use the official reviewer form provided by the journal.
  • Read the entire article and any supplementary materials, with close attention to figures, tables, data, and methods.
  • Provide a critical evaluation of the entire manuscript as well as specific sections and core concepts.
  • Ensure comments are detailed, clear, and actionable to assist authors in their revisions.
  • Do not recommend citations to your own work, the work of close colleagues, or articles from the journal unless they are genuinely necessary to improve the manuscript.
  • Avoid excessive or inappropriate citation recommendations such as self-citations or “honorary citations”.
  • Maintain a neutral, professional, and constructive tone. 
  • Derogatory or unprofessional comments are not acceptable.

 Analytical questions for evaluating research studies 

  • Is the manuscript clear, relevant, and well-structured?
  • Are the cited references recent (within the last five years) and appropriate?
  • Is there excessive self-citation?
  • Is the study scientifically sound? Is the experimental design appropriate for testing the hypothesis?
  • Are the results reproducible based on the methods provided?
  • Are the figures, tables, and images appropriate, clear, and correctly interpreted?
  • Are the conclusions consistent with the data and arguments?
  • Are the ethics and data availability statements adequate?

 Analytical questions for critiquing review articles 

  • Is the review clear, comprehensive, and relevant? Does it identify a knowledge gap?
  • Has a similar review been published recently? If so, is this review still needed and useful?
  • Are references recent and appropriate?
  • Are any key citations missing? Is there excessive self-citation?
  • Does the cited literature support statements and conclusions?
  • Are the figures and tables appropriate and easy to interpret?

 Key recommendation categories 

  • Accept as it is: The manuscript requires no further changes.
  • Accept with minor revisions: The manuscript can be accepted after addressing the minor reviewer comments. Authors are given five days for revisions.
  • Reconsider with major revisions: Substantial revisions are required. Authors must provide a point-by-point response or rebuttal. Up to two rounds of major revisions are allowed, with a ten-day revision period. If revisions require more than one month, authors may be advised to withdraw and resubmit.
  • Reject or submission elsewhere: The manuscript has serious flaws, lacks originality, or is unsuitable for publication and should be submitted elsewhere.

Reviewer recommendations are visible only to the editorial team. All decisions must be well-justified.

REVIEWER RECRUITMENT 

The GAERPSY Publishing gratefully acknowledges the contributions of reviewers who support the peer-review process for this issue. Their dedication is essential to maintaining the quality of our journals. We are currently recruiting reviewers. If you would like to join our reviewer community, please contact us at info@gaerpsy.com to request the application form.