Peer Review Policy

GAR uses double-blind peer review: authors and reviewers are not identified to one another during review.

Initial assessment

Each submission is checked for relevance to GAR, completeness, originality concerns, ethical documentation, conflicts of interest and basic scientific adequacy. A manuscript may be declined without external review when it is outside scope, incomplete, ethically unacceptable or clearly unsuitable.

External review

A manuscript that passes initial assessment is normally evaluated by at least two independent reviewers with relevant subject expertise. Reviewers assess the research question, methods, ethics, analysis, reporting, interpretation and contribution. A similarity score, institutional reputation or author identity must not determine the decision.

Editorial decision

Possible decisions are decline, request revision, accept subject to specified changes, or accept. Reviewers advise the editor; they do not make the final decision. Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers or assessed by the editor, depending on the extent of the changes.

Confidentiality and conflicts

Editors and reviewers must keep manuscripts and review records confidential. A reviewer or editor must decline involvement when a personal, professional, institutional or financial relationship could affect impartial judgment.

Editor as author

An editor or editorial-board member who submits to GAR has no access to the review decision. The manuscript is handled by another qualified editor who is free from the conflict, and the ordinary review requirements apply.

Appeals

An author may appeal a decision by identifying a specific error in the review or decision. Disagreement alone is not sufficient. Appeals are handled under the Complaints and Appeals Policy.