Peer Review Policy

1. Review Process
The journal uses a double-blind peer review process, where the identities of both authors and reviewers are concealed from each other throughout the evaluation. This ensures an unbiased assessment of the manuscript.

2. Initial Editorial Assessment
Upon submission, all manuscripts undergo an initial editorial assessment by the Editorial Office. This evaluation checks the manuscript’s alignment with the journal’s aims and scope, as well as its adherence to submission guidelines (formatting, length, and language), scholarly soundness, originality, and relevance. Manuscripts failing to meet these criteria may be returned to the authors for revision or desk-rejected, allowing for quicker submission to alternative journals.

3. Peer Review Process
The journal’s double-blind peer review process is supported by an expert database that is proactively built and maintained by the Editorial Office through various academic channels. Reviewers are selected based on their proven expertise in the relevant field. The expertise and credentials of potential reviewers are verified, and they are vetted for potential conflicts of interest.

Manuscripts passing the initial assessment are sent to at least three independent reviewers. Potential reviewers are first contacted with the manuscript’s abstract. Upon agreeing to review, they receive the full text and are requested to submit their evaluation within a maximum of 5 weeks. Reviewers are required to disclose any conflicts of interest.

Reviewers are asked to evaluate the manuscript on the following criteria:

  • Originality and novelty

  • Methodological rigor

  • Clarity of presentation and analysis

  • Adequacy of references

  • Overall contribution to the field

They must provide detailed, constructive, and anonymized comments for the author(s). Each review must conclude with a clear recommendation:

  • Accept as is

  • Accept after minor revisions

  • Accept after major revisions

  • Reject

In cases of conflicting recommendations or for manuscripts of exceptional scope, the Handling Editor may decide to seek additional expert advice.

4. Revision Stage
If a decision requires revisions, the manuscript and reviewers’ comments are returned to the corresponding author. Authors are typically given 3 weeks for minor revisions and 6 weeks for major revisions to resubmit their manuscript. Extensions may be granted upon reasonable request by the corresponding author, particularly for major revisions requiring substantial additional work. Authors are expected to adhere to the stated timeframes whenever possible.

5. Final Decision Stage
The Handling Editor evaluates the revised manuscript and the authors’ point-by-point responses. Based on this, the manuscript may either be accepted, sent back for further revision, or rejected if the revisions are inadequate.

Editorial Decision-Making Authority
The final academic decision on a manuscript is made by the Handling Editor. The Handling Editor is an Associate Editor or a designated member of the Editorial Board who is assigned to oversee the peer review process and make the acceptance/rejection decision for a specific manuscript. This decision is based on the reviewers’ recommendations, the manuscript’s scholarly merit, and its alignment with the journal’s scope.

6. Production Stage
Accepted manuscripts undergo professional copyediting, typesetting, and proofreading. Authors must approve the final proof before online publication.

7. Appeals Policy
Authors may appeal an editorial decision only on the grounds of procedural irregularity or a substantive misunderstanding of the scholarly content.
To initiate an appeal, the corresponding author must submit a formal letter detailing the specific concerns through the submission portal within 30 days of the decision.
The appeal must include a point-by-point response to all reviewer and editor comments.
The Editorial Board will acknowledge receipt of the appeal, conduct a procedural review, and, if necessary, consult with independent experts who were not involved in the original decision.
The final determination, with a clear rationale, will be communicated to the corresponding author via an official letter.

8. Reviewer Responsibilities, Ethics & Recruitment

8.1. Qualifications & Expectations
Individuals invited to review must:

  • Hold a doctoral degree or possess equivalent research expertise in a relevant field.

  • Be fluent in academic English.

  • Commit to completing reviews within the stipulated timeframe.

  • Provide objective, constructive, and detailed assessments.

  • Maintain strict confidentiality regarding the manuscript and the review process.

  • Disclose any potential conflicts of interest prior to agreeing to review.

  • Alert the Editorial Office to any suspected ethical issues (e.g., plagiarism, data fabrication).

8.2. Ethical Guidelines
Reviews must be conducted with objectivity and fairness. Comments should be scholarly, respectful, and focused on the work. Derogatory or personal criticisms are unacceptable. Information obtained during peer review must not be used for personal gain.

8.3. Reviewer Recruitment
The Editorial Office actively expands its reviewer database. Scholars interested in being considered for the reviewer pool may submit their curriculum vitae and a list of areas of expertise to office@gafj.org. Expressions of interest will be evaluated based on academic qualifications and the journal's needs. Outstanding reviewers may be formally recognized for their service.