Global Citation

Menu

Reviewer

Reviewer guidelines

The basis for reliable academic publishing is peer review; therefore, each submitted article goes through an independent, rigorous, and ethical evaluation process at GlobalCitation to guarantee that the published research is accurate, original, and scholarly valuable.

Submissions are examined objectively and in line with internationally accepted peer-review standards and practices.

  1. Reviewers’ Eligibility Criteria
    Global Citation has stringent requirements for potential peer reviewers to help ensure that the integrity of the publication process is maintained. Reviewers are expected to conduct their evaluations independently, impartially, within the required timeframes, and in accordance with COPE’s standards.

Individuals wishing to be considered as a reviewer must generally possess the following criteria:

  • Have proficiency/competence in an appropriate scholarly/academic/scientific discipline
  • Have produced a significant body of work that has been published in peer-reviewed journals
  • Understand proper ethical standards concerning academic/scholarly publishing
  • Be capable of conducting unbiased and constructive reviews on a timely basis
  1. Commitment to Reviewer Diversity
    Global Citation recognizes that a diverse pool of reviewers enhances the ability to conduct thorough and fair peer reviews. Editors actively seek out reviewers who come from diverse geographic regions, educational backgrounds, disciplines, and stages in their professional careers.

The goal of this inclusivity is to improve evaluation criteria, reduce bias, and support the publication of high-quality, globally relevant research.

III. Peer Review Model

  • Global Citation uses double blind peer review model.
  • Reviewers will remain anonymous to authors, while still being notified of author identity.

This model encourages transparency while using anonymity to maintain independence for reviewers.

  1. Reviewer Selection

The majority of the time that the selection of reviewers occurs is controlled by either the Editor-in-Chief or by the editorial staff that are responsible for overseeing the journal.

Three to five individuals who would be good candidates for conducting a peer review of the manuscript are chosen from each of the following groups:

  1. Members of the Editorial Board
  2. The journal’s database of reviewers
  3. Subject experts who have been located by searching various publications indexed inappropriately through databases like PubMed, Scopus, or Web of Science.

Initially, the invited reviewer will be contacted by the editorial staff to verify their availability and qualifications. As a result of the information provided with each of the reviews, two reviews will be collected on each manuscript. Should additional expertise or clarification be necessary, a third individual will be contacted as a reviewer.

When there is a shortage of reviewers because the area of research is new or very specialized, the editor may use their discretion on the timeline of the review process.

  1. Author-Suggested Reviewers

Authors may suggest individuals for the position of peer reviewer at the time that a manuscript is submitted for publication. Each suggestion will be evaluated based upon the following criteria that are independent of other results:

  1. No conflict of interest
  2. Appropriate expertise in the subject matter
  3. Academic credentials and publication record

Consideration will be given to other factors, such as the research background, the citation impact of the reviewers, and their relationship to the scope of the submitted manuscript. In addition, author would be encouraged to disclose any previous relationships with the reviewers suggeste

Reviewer Process

  1. Editorial Review Process

Before sending out for peer review, the Editorial Team determines if a submitted manuscript aligns with journal scope, meets formatting requirements, and adheres to ethical guidelines.

VII. Reviewing the Manuscript

Selected reviewers are invited to review a manuscript by sending them the title and abstract of the submission. The reviewers must reply to that invitation by either:

  • Accepting the invitation
  • Declining the invitation due to lack of availability or conflict of interest

VIII. Reviewer Agreement

Upon acceptance of an invitation to review, reviewers will have access to the manuscript for review and are expected to complete the review within the mutually agreed upon timeframe.

  1. Manuscript Evaluation Criteria

    Reviewers are asked to evaluate manuscripts based on:

  • Originality, relevance, and contribution to the field
  • Compatibility with journal scope
  • Clarity and accuracy of the abstract
  • Completeness and proper structure of each of the manuscript sections
  • Quality and clarity of all figures, tables and illustrations
  • Grammatical and readability quality
  • Relevancy and appropriateness of references
  • Research design, methodology, and analysis of data (for research articles)
  • Consistency of results with discussion and conclusions
  • Ethical standards related to human and/or animal study and data availability
  • Proper documentation of informed consent for human or animal studies
  • Detection of AI-generated content when applicable
  1. Compliance with Reporting Guidelines

    Authors must adhere strictly to appropriate reporting guidelines relevant to the method. Reviewers should check for adherence to a given reporting standard and disclose any deviations.

Some of the common reporting guidelines used are:

  1. CONSORT – randomized controlled trials
  2. TREND – non-randomized studies
  3. PRISMA – systematic reviews and meta-analyses
  4. CARE – case reports
  5. STROBE – observational studies
  6. STREGA – genetic association studies
  7. STARD / TRIPOD – diagnostic accuracy and prediction models
  8. COREQ – qualitative research
  9. ARRIVE – animal studies
  10. EQUATOR Network – a resource for finding reporting guidelines
  11. Reviewer Ratings and Feedback

Reviewers are to assign:

  1. A score to each individual section
  2. Constructive feedback to authors
  3. Confidential comments to editors
  4. Editor-only comments will not be provided to the authors.

XII. Final Decision

Reviewers will choose one of the following final decisions:

  1. Accepted as submitted
  2. Accepted with minor revisions
  3. Accepted with major revisions
  4. Not accepted (no resubmit)

Typically, authors are required to revise major revisions will be reviewed by the same reviewers as before.

XIII. Article Transfer

If a manuscript is unsuitable due to scope rather than quality, authors may be offered the option to transfer the manuscript to a more appropriate GlobalCitation journal, subject to mutual agreement.

Become a reviewer

XIV. Reviewer Recognition and Benefits

GlobalCitation recognizes the important role of peer reviewers in contributing to our organization. Reviewers can receive a variety of types of recognition, which may include the following:

  • Official Reviewer Certificate
  • APC discounts after completing multiple reviews
  • Optional listing on the Reviewer’s Panel page
  • Consideration for Editorial Board membership
  • Discounts on services for language editing and graphics enhancement
  1. Conflict of Interest

    All peer reviewers should act in an impartial manner; if a peer reviewer has an actual or perceived conflict of interest, they must disclose their potential conflicts immediately. Some examples of conflicts of interest include:

  • Personal or professional relationships with authors
  • Previous collaborations or co-authorship with an author
  • Financial or professional interest in the outcome of the reviewed manuscript

GlobalCitation has adopted the conflict-of-interest management procedures recommended by COPE.

XVI. Confidentiality

All manuscripts and supporting documents created during the review process will be treated as confidential; peer reviewers must not share the contents of a manuscript or disclose author details.

If more than one reviewer is involved with a manuscript’s review process, the editor must approve this kind of collaboration prior to reviewers sharing any information with each other.

XVII. Review Timelines

  • Standard manuscript review timeline is 14 days
  • Average time from submission to editorial decision is 3 to 4 weeks

If a peer reviewer cannot meet a timeline, they must inform the Editorial Office as soon as possible.

XVIII. Misconduct in Peer Review

GlobalCitation actively monitors and works to prevent manipulation of the peer-review process as well as other forms of peer-review misconduct, including but not limited to citation coercion and taking advantage of a reviewer’s designer identity. GlobalCitation manages all peer-review misconduct in accordance with COPE’s procedures.

XIX. Reviewer Registration

If you are a researcher interested in joining the GlobalCitation peer-review community, you may complete the Reviewer Registration Form. The Editors will review all submissions and assign approved reviewers to manuscripts that are within their expertise.

To register as a reviewer, please contact us at editor@web.globalcitation.com