All submitted manuscripts that are developed according to the specified guidelines are sent for peer-review. Those papers judged by the editors to be of insufficient general interest or otherwise inappropriate are rejected promptly without external review.
Manuscripts judged to be of potential interest to our readership are sent for peer-review, normally to two or three reviewers, but sometimes more if special advice is needed (for example on statistics or a particular technique). The editors then make a decision based on the reviewers’ advice, from among several possibilities:
Reviewers are welcome to recommend a particular course of action, but they should bear in mind that the other reviewers of a particular paper may have different technical expertise and/or views, and the editors may have to make a decision based on conflicting advice. The most useful reports, therefore, provide the editors with the information on which a decision should be based.
TheGMS select the peer-reviewers on the basis of their expertise in the subject are of submitted manuscript, their previous experiences and their promptness in previous assigned reviews and any specific recommendations. We check with potential reviewers before sending them manuscripts to review. The reviewers should be quick, careful and provide reasoning for their views on the assigned manuscript. We strongly encourage authors to suggest reviewers to provide a diverse list of their peers, in particular with respect to gender and geography.
TheGMS is committed to rapid peer-review, editorial decisions and subsequent publication of the manuscript, and we believe that an efficient editorial process is a valuable service both to our authors and to the scientific community as a whole. We therefore ask reviewers to respond promptly within the number of days agreed. If reviewers anticipate a longer delay than previously expected, we ask them to let us know so that we can keep the authors informed and, where necessary, find alternatives.
TheGMS offers a double blind peer-review option. The peer review process is confidential and conducted anonymously; identities of reviewers and authors are not released. Authors and peer-reviewers remain anonymous to each other throughout the manuscript publication process.
Editors, authors and reviewers are required to keep confidential all details of the editorial and peer- review process on submitted manuscripts. Reviewers must maintain confidentiality of manuscripts. If a reviewer wishes to seek advice from colleagues while assessing a manuscript, the reviewer must consult with the editor and should ensure that confidentiality is maintained and that the names of any such colleagues are provided to the journal with the final report. Regardless of whether a submitted manuscript is eventually published, correspondence with the journal, peer-reviewers reports and other confidential material must not be published, disclosed or otherwise publicized without prior written consent.
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. This category only includes cookies that ensures basic functionalities and security features of the website. These cookies do not store any personal information.
Any cookies that may not be particularly necessary for the website to function and is used specifically to collect user personal data via analytics, ads, other embedded contents are termed as non-necessary cookies. It is mandatory to procure user consent prior to running these cookies on your website.