PEER-REVIEW POLICY

All submitted manuscripts that adhere to the journal’s guidelines are considered for peer review. Manuscripts deemed by the editors to be outside the scope of the journal or of insufficient scientific interest may be rejected without external review.

Manuscripts of potential interest are typically sent to two or three independent reviewers, and occasionally more if specialized expertise is required (e.g., statistical analysis or specific methodologies). Based on reviewers’ feedback, editors make a final decision, which may include:

• Acceptance, with or without minor editorial revisions
• Minor revision, subject to satisfactory responses to reviewer and editor comments
• Major revision, requiring substantial changes and further editorial or external evaluation
• Rejection with an invitation to revise and resubmit
• Rejection due to insufficient scientific rigor, inadequate data, or major technical concerns

Reviewers may recommend a course of action; however, final decisions are made by the editors, who may consider differing reviewer perspectives. The most valuable reviews provide clear, constructive, and evidence-based evaluations to support editorial decisions.

Reviewers are selected based on their subject expertise, prior review experience, responsiveness, and relevance to the submitted manuscript. Potential reviewers are contacted prior to assignment to confirm their availability.

Reviewers are expected to provide timely, thorough, and well-reasoned evaluations. Authors are encouraged to suggest potential reviewers, ensuring diversity in expertise, geography, and gender.

The GMS is committed to an efficient and transparent editorial process. Reviewers are requested to adhere to agreed timelines. In case of delays, reviewers are expected to inform the editorial office so that authors can be kept updated and alternative arrangements can be made if necessary.

Editors, authors, and reviewers must maintain strict confidentiality regarding all aspects of the review process. Reviewers must not share or disclose manuscript content without prior permission from the editorial office.

If a reviewer seeks input from a colleague, prior approval from the editor must be obtained, and confidentiality must be maintained. The names of any contributing individuals should be disclosed to the journal along with the review report.

All correspondence, reviewer comments, and related materials are treated as confidential and must not be published, shared, or disclosed without prior written consent from the journal, regardless of the manuscript’s publication outcome.

Reviewers must disclose financial, professional, institutional, personal, or other relationships that could reasonably affect their impartiality. Reviewers should decline an invitation where a conflict may compromise independent evaluation.

Editors consider declared conflicts when selecting reviewers. Authors may suggest reviewers, but the journal independently assesses their suitability and is not obliged to appoint them. Reviewers with relevant conflicts should not be assigned to the manuscript.

Reviewers are expected to assess the scholarly soundness of manuscripts and communicate substantive concerns regarding methodology, originality, data reliability, ethical approval, consent, or the accuracy of reported findings to the handling editor in confidence.

Editors may request supporting information, seek specialist advice, or take action under the journal's publication ethics procedures where credible concerns arise. Peer review does not guarantee that every error or instance of misconduct will be detected.

The GMS maintains human responsibility for peer-review assessments and editorial decisions. Reviewers must not upload unpublished manuscripts, review reports, or confidential editorial correspondence to external AI systems in ways that could compromise confidentiality, intellectual property, or data protection.

Any permitted AI-assisted use must comply with the journal's confidentiality and AI policies. AI-generated assessments must not substitute for the independent judgment and accountability of qualified reviewers and editors.

Editorial decisions are based on scholarly merit, relevance, methodological soundness, originality, and ethical integrity. Publication charges and optional services, including manuscript development, podcasts, author webpages, and promotional activities, do not influence reviewer selection, reviewer recommendations, or editorial decisions.

Purchasing any optional service does not guarantee manuscript acceptance or publication. Submission and initial editorial consideration are free; any applicable publication charges are addressed separately under the journal's Costs and Waivers policy.

For further information, see the Authorship Policy, Editorial Policies, Article Preparation Guidelines, and Costs and Waivers.