For Reviewers

As a peer reviewer for a Science Partner Journal, you are part of a valued community. Scientific progress depends on the communication of information that can be trusted, and the peer review process is a vital part of that system.

Only some of the papers submitted to Science Partner Journals are reviewed in depth. Reviewers may be selected to evaluate separate components of a manuscript. We greatly appreciate the time spent in preparing a review and will consult reviewers on a revision of a manuscript only if we believe the paper has been significantly improved but still requires input. The final responsibility for decisions of acceptance or rejection of a submitted manuscript lies with the editor.

Guidelines for Reviewers

Be objective. If a reviewer cannot judge a paper impartially, they should not accept the invitation to review it. If a reviewer has any professional, personal, or financial affiliations that are or even may be perceived as a conflict of interest in reviewing the manuscript, they should not accept the invitation to review, or, if this conflict of interest is uncovered after seeing the full manuscript materials, they should recuse themselves immediately and fully inform the journal editors. If there is an aspect of a manuscript that a reviewer feels they are not qualified to evaluate, they should inform the editor.

Provide considerate and useful comments. Reviews should be constructive and courteous, and the reviewer should respect the intellectual independence of the author. The reviewer should avoid personal comments; The Science Partner Journal editors reserve the right to edit out comments that will hinder constructive discussion of manuscripts. If something is unclear due to the language please address this in the review, however reviewers are not expected to edit/correct the grammar or language in the manuscript. Please restrict review comments directed to the authors to the scientific content. If you feel that English language editing is recommended, please note this in your confidential comments to the editor.

Work promptly. Just as a reviewer may wish prompt evaluations of their own research, we request they return reviews within the time period specified when asked to review the paper. If events will prevent a timely review, it is the reviewer’s responsibility to inform the editor at the time of the request.

Maintain anonymity. The review process is conducted anonymously. The Science Partner Journals never reveal the identity of reviewers to authors. The privacy and anonymity provisions of this process extend to the reviewer, who should not reveal his or her identity to outsiders or members of the press. The review itself will be shared only with the author, editor, and possibly with other reviewers (anonymously).

Maintain confidentiality. The submitted manuscript is a privileged communication and must be treated as a confidential document. Reviewers should destroy all copies of the manuscript after review and not share the manuscript with any colleagues without the explicit permission of the editor. Reviewers should not make personal or professional use of the data or interpretations before publication without the authors’ specific permission (unless they are invited to write an editorial or commentary to accompany the article).

Know our Editorial Policies. Reviewers should be aware of the Science Partner Journal policies regarding conflict of interest, data availability, and materials sharing. To review these guidelines, please visit the Publication Ethics page.

Criteria for Evaluation

Scope: The manuscript should fall within the scope of the journal.

Novelty: The information should not already exist in the literature. It should be innovative and answer an important question within the field. Ideally, it should also have the potential for implications outside of the field.

Methods: The approach should be clear, appropriate, rigorous, and current.

Conclusions: The evidence provided should justify the conclusions and the conclusions should be compelling enough to deserve rapid publication.

Review Process

GRR uses the following review process:

Authors submit their paper electronically, along with a cover letter/CV that includes nominations and experience. You can access to the website for submission of manuscripts to (GRR)  in this link.

Authors who have not previously submitted papers to GRR or reviewed for the journal will have to first register themselves on the system.

Once logged into the GRR Submissions website, you will be asked to fill a set of informations and upload your materials. After this is successfully completed, the Editor-in-Chief will be notified and will assign the paper to a senior editor taking into consideration the author’s specialty and the senior editor’s workload. Once the senior editor agrees to handle the paper, the submission is officially transferred on the system to senior editor.

A senior editor first screens the submission. The senior editor evaluates whether the paper (1) addresses a topic and uses a genre that fits with the mission of GRR and (2) has achieved a level of quality that justifies further evaluation by a review team.

The senior editor then makes a decision whether to seek the assistance of an associate editor. If the senior editor has a high level of expertise in the topic of the paper, he/she may not engage an associate editor.  If associate editors are engaged, however, they apply a second screening to the paper. Sometimes, the senior editor and associate editor may screen a submission in parallel.

If submissions do not pass the initial screening(s), they are returned to the authors as inappropriate or rejected submissions.

Papers that pass the initial screening are then sent to a panel of reviewers (usually two or three).

Once review comments are returned to the editors, the associate editor assimilates them and makes an editorial recommendation regarding publication, revision, or rejection. The senior editor uses this recommendation as a basis for his/her final decision.

Associate editors are guided by the recommendations of reviewers, but they do not necessarily comply with the majority recommendation of the reviewers. Instead, they are required to make their own judgment on the merits of a paper. Similarly, senior editors are guided by the recommendations of reviewers and associate editors, but they are required to make their own judgments on the merits of a paper.

Senior editors make a final judgment on a manuscript and send their report plus a copy of the reports provided by the associate editor and reviewers to authors.

The senior editor provides the associate editor and reviewers with a copy of the review reports they send to the authors. Authors’ names are removed from the copy of the review reports sent to the reviewers.

Global Research Review strives to provide authors with timely, high-quality reviews. Nonetheless, a full review process may take approximately one month from receipt of the manuscript to the first editorial decision. A review process that takes place during December or January or during the summer months may take longer.

Authors can access the status of their manuscripts as they pass through the review process via this platform.

At certain times of the year, authors should be aware that review processes tend to be slower. For instance, during December and January, many colleagues have end-of-semester responsibilities, and many attend conferences. In the southern hemisphere, many colleagues also take vacations. During July and August, many colleagues in the northern hemisphere attend conferences and take vacations. Many also finalize research papers during this period and thus the Global Research Review may receives a large number of submissions.