Peer Review Policy

Double-blind peer review process ensuring academic excellence and scholarly integrity.

Peer Review Policy

The Global Review of Ideas and Innovation employs a double-blind peer-review process, meaning that both reviewers and authors remain anonymous throughout the evaluation period. Each submitted manuscript is first screened by the editorial office to ensure compliance with the journal's aims, scope, and formatting requirements.

Double-Blind Process

Both reviewers and authors remain anonymous throughout the evaluation period.

Review Process

Suitable manuscripts are then assigned to at least two independent reviewers with expertise in the relevant field. Reviewers assess submissions for originality, clarity, methodological soundness, and contribution to existing scholarship. Their feedback is designed to be constructive, guiding authors toward strengthening their arguments and presentation.

Review Criteria

Originality

Novel contributions to knowledge

Clarity

Clear and coherent presentation

Methodology

Sound research methods

Contribution

Value to existing scholarship

Editorial Decision

The editorial decision—acceptance, revision, or rejection—is based on the reviewers' recommendations and the editor's assessment of the paper's overall quality. The peer-review process is treated as a collaborative and educational dialogue between authors and experts, ensuring that published work meets the highest academic standards.

Review Timeline

Submission

Initial manuscript submission

Review

Double-blind peer review

Decision

Editorial decision

Collaborative Process

The peer-review process is treated as a collaborative and educational dialogue between authors and experts.

Reviewer Selection

Reviewers are selected based on their expertise in the relevant field, their publication record, and their experience with peer review. The journal maintains a diverse pool of reviewers from different geographical regions and academic institutions to ensure comprehensive evaluation.

Review Process

Double-blind review
Independent reviewers
Constructive feedback
Academic standards