peer review 

The GAERPSY is committed to maintaining high standards of academic quality, ethical integrity, and international relevance. All manuscripts submitted to the journal undergo a rigorous, transparent, and fair peer review process designed to ensure scholarly excellence and global impact. 

Type of peer review 

GARPSY employs a double-blind peer-review process. Neither authors nor reviewers are aware of each other’s identities throughout the review process. Each manuscript is reviewed by at least two independent experts in the relevant field of psychology. 

Editorial screening or Initial checks 

Upon submission, manuscripts are first screened by the Digital Editorial Officer (DEO) or assigned editor to assess: 

  • Alignment with the journal’s aims and scope
  • Relevance to international psychological scholarship
  • Ethical compliance and originality
  • Basic methodological and theoretical adequacy

 GAERPSY will reject manuscripts that do not meet these criteria and may desk-reject them before external review. 

Review criteria 

Reviewers are asked to evaluate manuscripts using a structured review framework focusing on the following core dimensions: 

Contribution to international literature 

  • Originality and novelty of the study
  • Relevance beyond a single local or national context
  • Contribution to global or cross-cultural psychological debates

 Theoretical grounding 

  • Clear articulation of the theoretical or conceptual framework
  • Appropriate use of established psychological theories or models
  • Logical integration of theory with research questions, methods, and findings

 Citation depth and literature engagement 

  • Engagement with the last 5–7 years and relevant international literature
  • Inclusion of key debates and seminal works in the field
  • Analytical, not merely descriptive, literature review

 Methodological rigor 

  • Appropriateness of research design
  • Transparency in sampling, instruments, and procedures
  • Rigorous and appropriate data analysis
  • Clear reporting of ethical considerations

 Interpretation and scholarly implications 

  • Coherent interpretation of findings
  • Integration of results with theory and existing literature
  • Clear implications for research, practice, or policy

 Reviewer recommendations 

Reviewers provide one of the following recommendations: 

  • Accept
  • Minor revisions
  • Major revisions
  • Reject

 GAERPSY strongly encourages constructive, developmental feedback. Reviewers are requested to prioritise substantive issues over minor stylistic concerns. 

Editorial decision-making 

Final publication decisions are made by the Editor-in-Chief, considering: 

  • Reviewer reports and recommendations
  • The journal’s quality standards
  • Balance and coherence of each issue

 Where reviewer opinions diverge substantially, an additional review may be sought. 

Ethical standards 

GAERPSY adheres to internationally recognised publication ethics, including the principles of the  Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Reviewers are expected to: 

  • Declare any conflicts of interest
  • Maintain confidentiality of manuscripts
  • Review objectively and respectfully

 Reviewer recognition 

While peer review is voluntary and unpaid, GAERPSY recognises the vital contribution of reviewers by issuing formal letters of acknowledgment and listing them annually on the journal website, with their consent. Commitment to quality and impact

Through its peer review process, GAERPSY aims to publish research that is: 

  • Theoretically grounded
  • Methodologically sound
  • Internationally relevant
  • Positioned for high scholarly visibility and citation impact

GAERPSY believes that better reviews lead to stronger articles, which in turn enhance the journal’s academic standing and global reach.